Conference: Miscellaneous
 |
MY HERMENEUTICAL APPROACH TO APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE
Muchcontroversy surrounds the identification of Babylon in Revelation 17-18. Thereason for this controversy is that interpreters disagree over thehermeneutical approach to be employed in deciphering John's Apocalypse. Thisdisagreement over hermeneutics in turn results from disagreement regarding howRevelation's genre should be classified. Should Revelation be classified asbelonging to the prophetic genre or apocalyptic genre? The genre categorizationselected by the interpreter effects his hermeneutic. Each of these genrecategories is accompanied by a different set of hermeneutical principles. Most New Testament scholarsclassify Revelation's genre as apocalyptic. Apocalyptic literature becamepredominant during the intertestamental period and continued to flourish duringthe time when the Book of Revelation was written. Such apocalyptic writingsinclude The Book of Enoch, Apocalypse of Baruch, Book of Jubilees,Assumption of Moses, Psalms of Solomon, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, andSibylline Oracles. Thesewritings possess a common cluster of attributes. Such attributes include thefollowing: extensive use of symbolism, vision as the major means of revelation,angelic guides, activity of angels and demons, focus on the end of the currentage and the inauguration of the age to come, urgent expectation of the end ofearthly conditions in the immediate future, the end as a cosmic catastrophe,new salvation that is paradisal in character, manifestation of the kingdom ofGod, a mediator with royal functions, dualism with God and Satan as theleaders, spiritual order determining the flow of history, pessimism about mans'ability to change the course of events, periodization and determinism of humanhistory, other worldly journeys, the catchword glory, and a final showdownbetween good and evil. Revelationshares many of these attributes. Revelation was also written during the generaltime period when such literature flourished. Thus, most New Testament scholarsconsider the Book of Revelation part of this apocalyptic literary genre. Thedecision to classify Revelation as belonging to the apocalyptic genre has atremendous impact upon how one interprets the book. Numerous hermeneuticaldoors seem to open to the extent that the primary character of Revelation'sgenre is viewed as apocalyptic. Forexample, it becomes difficult to approach the text with a straightforwardliteralism. Gregg contends that many interpreters fail to take into accountRevelation's apocalyptic character. According to Steve Gregg: A failure to take into account this feature has led some to the mostoutlandish teachings on this book by some whose rule of interpretation is'literal unless absurd.' Though this is good rule when dealing with literaturewritten in a literal genre, it is the exact opposite in the case of apocalypticliterature, where symbolism is the rule and literalism is the exception. Kenneth Gentry echoessimilar sentiments when he notes: Before beginning my survey, I must note what most Christians suspect andwhat virtually all evangelical scholars (excluding classic dispensationalists)recognize regarding the book: Revelation is a highly figurative book that wecannot approach with a simple straightforward literalism.[2]
Thereason that apocalyptic literature cannot be approached literally is because ofthe nature of such literature. At times, the apocalyptists disguised throughsymbolic language the entity that was oppressing God's people. The apocalypticwriter sought to give hope to the oppressed people of God by predicting thecataclysmic destruction of the enemy that was persecuting them. However, theapocalyptist was not at liberty to literally identify the oppressor. Such amessage of hope would have never gotten past the censors of Antiochus or Rome.Had it been written unambiguously that the insane Antiochus would be cast down,such a message would have been proscribed just as the books of the law hadbeen. Thus, the message had to be veiled in symbolic language.[3] Thus,a literal interpretation without properly understanding the genre of the bookleads to an inaccurate conclusion. Thus,categorizing Revelation as apocalyptic significantly influences how oneidentifies Babylon of Revelation 17-18. If John was following in the pattern ofthe apocalyptists, he does not mean Babylon when he says Babylon. Instead, heis using the word Babylon as a symbolic disguise to identify an oppressor thatwas persecuting Gods' people when John wrote. Thus, when John mentionedBabylon, he might have had in mind Jerusalem or Rome. Anotherreason apocalyptic writings cannot be interpreted literally is because suchwritings can be described as crisis literature.[4] In other words, thewriting was produced as a result of some impending crisis.[5] Inorder to highlight the severity of the crisis, the apocalyptist spoke inexaggerated terms. Take by way of analogy the statement, "my world has come toan end because my girlfriend has broken up with me." This statement obviouslydoes not communicate a literal end of the world. Rather, it is using heightenedlanguage in order to communicate the significance of a personal event. Similarly,an apocalyptic understanding of Revelation views John as vesting earthly eventswith heightened eschatological language in order to communicate the gravity ofthe immediate crisis. Caird best summarizes the matter when he says, "Whatseems to have escaped notice at the time is that Eschatology is a metaphor, theapplication of end of the world language to that which is not literally the endof the world."[6] Understanding Revelation in suchhyperbolic terms opens the possibility that the global language of Revelation17-18 may in actuality be descriptive of a localized phenomenon that John hasinvested with global language. Thus, when John speaks of a great city reigningover the kings of the earth (17:18), he is speaking in heightened language ofan immediate oppressive force in his own day, such as Jerusalem or Rome. Apocalypticmultivalence is another hermeneutical door that opens when Revelation isclassified as belonging to the apocalyptic category. Collins offers thefollowing explanation of apocalyptic multivalence: In other Jewish apocalypses the Babylonian crisis of the sixth century oftenprovides the filter through which later crises are viewed. The emphasis is noton the uniqueness of the historical events but on recurring patterns, whichassimilate the particular crisis to some event of the past whether historicalor mythical.[7]
Understanding multivalence affects how one identifiesBabylon of Revelation 17-18. If John employs apocalyptic multivalence in thesechapters, it is possible that the events of the chapter cannot be anchored toone event but rather can recur repeatedly throughout history. This perspectiveallows Bock to employ a multi layered hermeneutic in identifying Babylon.According to Bock, Babylon of Revelation 17-18 not only represents Rome butalso a future rebuilt Babylon on the Euphrates. He also says that Babylon alsorefers to any other city in the sweep of history due to the fact that the worldempire's center is always shifting.[8] Pate employs a similar rationale inreaching the conclusion that Babylon not only refers to a future Babylon but toJerusalem as well.[9] CategorizingRevelation as apocalyptic also influences how one interprets Revelation'snumbers. According to Gregg, other apocalypses typically use numbers to conveyconcepts rather than count units.[10] Bock seems to rely upon such anapocalyptic framework when he remains open to the possibility that the number1000 mentioned six times in Revelation 20 refers to an extended period of timerather than a literal 1000 year time period.[11] This again effectshow one understands Revelation 17-18 because numerical references are used atleast twice in these chapters (17:9-10, 12). However,others believe that while Revelation contains some apocalyptic elements, thebook has more in common with the prophetic genre than the apocalyptic genre. Ifthis is the case, then a new set of hermeneutical principles is not needed toproperly interpret Revelation.[12] Thus, the same literal, grammatical,historical method that is used to understand other sections of scripture andprophetic material is also what is needed in order to understand Revelation.Literalism can be defined as attaching to every word the same meaning that itwould have in normal usage, whether employed in speaking, writing, or thinking. How does the interpreter usingthis approach recognize when figurative or symbolic language is being employed?One clue involves the use of the word sign (shmeion). When John uses this word,it alerts the interpreter to the fact that John is speaking figuratively orsymbolically rather than literally. For example, because John uses shmeion todescribe the woman in Revelation 12:1, it is obvious that the woman is symbolicor representative of something. Another clue involves the words like (ovmoios) or as (wvs). When John employs such language, he is indicating a correspondencebetween what he saw in the vision and what he was trying to describe. Forexample, Revelation 8:8 says, "And something like a great mountain burningwith fire was thrown into the sea" The word "like" alerts the interpreter tothe fact that John is simply using comparative language to describe withal hesaw and the mountain is not to be interpreted literally. Another clue involves anidentical correspondence in the Old Testament. Because the leopard, lion, andbear in Revelation 13:2 are also used in Daniel 7 to depict nations, theinterpreter is alerted to the fact that John is employing symbolic language.Thus, the leopard, lion, and bear also represent nations in Revelation 13 justas they did in Daniel 7. Yet another clue involves an interpretation in theimmediate context. If something is interpreted for the reader, then the thinginterpreted is obviously a symbol. The woman in Revelation 17 is obviously asymbol because the immediate context interprets her to be a city (17:18). Afinal clue involves looking for absurdity. For example, if the woman inRevelation 12:1 was literally clothed with the sun she would be destroyed bythe heat. Because a literal interpretation yields an absurd result, symboliclanguage must be in use. After identifying figurative or symboliclanguage, how is such language to be understood? Sometimes the immediatecontext interprets the symbol. For example, the dragon of Revelation 12:3 isinterpreted as Satan in 12:9. Walvoord identifies twenty-six instances in whicha symbol is interpreted in the immediate context.[14]Another method is to see if the same symbol is employed elsewhere in the OldTestament. For example, the same symbol of the woman used in Revelation 12:1 isalso used in Genesis 37:9-11 to depict Israel. Thus, the woman of Revelation 12is symbolic of Israel. This strategy is useful because John uses so much of theOld Testament's imagery. According to Thomas, 278 of Revelation's 404 versesallude to the Old Testament.[15] Fruchtenbaum's work is helpful tothe interpreter in this regard because it contains a lengthy appendix listingall of the Old Testament allusions found in Revelation.[16] Afinal method for understanding Revelation's symbolic language is to note thatJohn through his use of "like" or "as" is attempting to describe futuristicevents that are beyond his linguistic ability. Thus, he communicates throughlanguage of correspondence. In other words, in order to communicate thecontents of his vision, he uses similes or language of comparison by equating thingsfrom his own world to the futuristic events that he sees in his vision. Moreover,Tenney observes that a consistent application of a literal approach toRevelation logically leads to the futurist interpretation.[17] Arelationship exists between literalism and futurism because the ordinary importof Revelation's words and phrases makes it impossible to argue thatRevelation's contents have already been fulfilled. The sea turning to blood(Rev 16:3), half of the world's population being destroyed (Rev 6:4; 9:15), andthe greatest earthquake in human history (Rev 16:18) obviously have never takenplace. Thus, literal interpreters are less likely to see events taking place inJohn's day as significant for interpreting the book's meaning because theevents of the book will be fulfilled in the distant future from John's era. In this introductory section, Ihave sought to set forth the different hermeneutical principles that will beemployed if one views the primary character of Revelation as apocalyptic or prophetic.While no one can deny the many similarities between Revelation and apocalypticliterature, I believe that the book has more in common with prophecy thanapocalypticism. My reasons for making this determination will be presentedunder the Babylon interpretation in the second section of the paper. Thus, myconclusions regarding the identity of the woman in Revelation 17-18 are basedlargely upon the literal method of interpretation. I will identify andinterpret symbolic or figurative language in Revelation 17-18 according to theprinciples enumerated above. I know that this approach will not answer all ofthe questions. However, in comparison to other approaches, it seems to have thebest potential of unfolding the true meaning of Babylon in Revelation 17-18. IDENTIFICATIONOF BABYLON IN REVELATION 17-18Thissection of the paper will survey five prominent approaches for identifyingBabylon in Revelation 17-18. These approaches include identifying Babylon asthe world, Jerusalem, Rome, an end time religious system, and futuristic,literal, rebuilt Babylon. As will be discussed below, I lean toward the lastoption. Other interpretive options exist, such as viewing Babylon as the RomanCatholic Church or as an eclectic amalgamation of two or more of these views.However, spatial limitations cause me to limit the discussion to the previouslyenumerated five views. For each option, I will follow a two-fold approach.First, I will allow the view to speak for itself by presenting the methodologyembraced by its proponents. Second, I will raise objections and potentialweaknesses. World MethodologyThefirst interpretive option in identifying Babylon of Revelation 17-18 is to seeBabylon as depicting the satanic world system that has corrupted the world's history.This approach is part of the idealist method of interpreting Revelation.According to this method, the events described in Revelation do not necessarilylook for individual or specific fulfillments. Rather, the symbolism of the bookdepicts spiritual lessons or principles recurring throughout history thusedifying believers in every age. Therefore, the view divorces Revelation fromhistory in exchange for finding great principles that are operational in everyage. These great principles include the triumph of good over evil, thevindication of martyrs, the sovereignty of God, and spiritual warfare takingplace throughout history.[18] Beale, In the first century, Babylon was Rome. Two generations ago it was Berlin.Today, perhaps, it is Las Vegas or even a university campus. Babylon can befound everywhere throughout the history of the world. It is the center ofanti-Christian seduction any time in history.[24]
According toHendrickson: the worldviewed as the embodiment of 'the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, andthe vainglory of life.' Babylon, then, is the world as the centre of seductionat any moment in history, particularly during this dispensation.
The idealist approach heavily relies uponRevelation's apocalyptic content. According to Hamstra, because the idealistbegins with the presupposition that Revelation is apocalyptic, the idealistviews all of Revelation's episodes and visions as symbolic until provenotherwise.[26] In addition, an idealist employs theabove described transtemporal framework when approaching the text of Revelation17-18. Thus, the woman drunk with the blood of the saints (17:6) not onlyspeaks of Rome's persecution of believers but also of the persecution caused byworld governments throughout history.[27] Hendriksen sees the command to leaveBabylon (18:4) as relating to believers of all time when he notes: Theadmonition to leave Babylon is addressed to believers in all ages (cf. Isa48:20; 52:11; Jer 50:8, 41-44; Zech 2:7). From this fact it appears thatBabylon is not only the city of the end-time. It is the world, as the centre ofseduction, in any age.[28]
Hendriksen attaches a similar transtemporal meaning to Babylon'sdestruction (17:16-17; 18:9-24): When Babylonperishes, the economic chaos is complete; the world of the unbeliever, on whichhe has pinned his hopes and built his trust, collapses! This is true withrespect to the fall of every Babylon-whether it is literal Babylon, or Nineveh,or Rome.[29] Weaknesses To begin with, a problem with this transhistorical understandingis that Revelation 1:1 seem to be predicting a set of specific events that mustshortly come to pass. This verse gives the impression that at least somespecific events in some historical setting is intended.[30]Also, Wright similarly contends that biblical prophetic tradition shows aconcern for history in addition to theology. He notes: [Jews] knewa good metaphor when they saw one, and used cosmic imagery to bring out fulltheological significance of cataclysmic socio-political events.[31]
Elsewhere Wright indicates: It will notdo to dismiss'apocalyptic' as 'merely metaphorical.' Metaphors have teeth; thecomplex metaphors available to first century Jews had particularly sharp ones,and they could be, and apparently were, reapplied to a variety of scenarios,all within this-worldly history.[32]
Moreover, why are the specific details given inRevelation 17-18 if they will have no historical fulfillment? Thus, to refer tothe city as merely an ideal city seems to fall short of the requirement ofchapters 17-18 of a real city at a certain spot on the earth. Finally, predictiveprophecy in Scripture has fulfillments in history that are specific, such asthe predictions in Isaiah 53 of Messiah's sufferings.[33] Jerusalem Another interpretive option involves identifyingBabylon in Revelation 17-18 as the city of Jerusalem. Some of the mainproponents of this position include Ford,[34] Russell, Advocates of the Jerusalem view employ somegeneral arguments in reaching the conclusion that the description of Babylonand its destruction are in actuality describing the fall of Jerusalem in A.D.70. To begin with, some Jerusalem proponents see Peter's reference to the placeof origin of his letter as Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 as actually a reference toJerusalem. By way of comparison, Babylon = Rome proponents view Peter'sreference to Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 as a reference to Rome on account of thefact that tradition associates Peter's later life with Rome rather thanBabylon. Thus, they see Peter using the term Babylon to speak cryptically ofRome in 1 Peter 5:13. Rome advocates use this verse as proof that Babylon was acommon first century Christian code word for Rome. This theory helps themidentify Babylon of Revelation 17-18 as Rome. Babylon = Jerusalem proponents employ thisidentical rationale. However, they maintain that Peter was referring toJerusalem rather than Rome in 1 Peter 5:13 and therefore the early churchunderstood Babylon as a cryptic reference to Jerusalem rather than Rome.Russell cites several reasons to substantiate the theory that Peter wasreferring to Jerusalem through his use of the term Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13. Also,fourteen years later Paul again visited Barnabas, Titus, and Peter in Jerusalem(Gal 2:1-9). In addition, Peter was intimidated by those who came fromJerusalem presumably because upon his way home they would hold him accountable.This seems to imply that Peter's residence was in Jerusalem (Gal 2:11-12).Moreover, if Markus named in the epistle is John Mark, we know that his abodewas in Jerusalem (Acts 12:12). In addition, Silvanus or Silas, the writer orbearer of the epistle, was known as a prominent member of the Jerusalem church(Acts 15:22-32). Russellalso maintains that 1 Peter 4:17 also supports the notion that Peter was inJerusalem when he wrote the epistle. 1 Peter 4:17 says, "For the time has come for judgment to begin at the house of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the end of those who do not obey the gospel of God?"[43]Russell argues that this verse fixes Peter's location in Jerusalem just beforethe city's imminent destruction in A.D. 70. Russell contends that the phrase"house of God" is an unmistakable reference to the Jewish temple. Moreover, thephrase "and if it begins first with us" places Peter in the temple area whenthe judgment was to take place. In addition, Russell believes that Peter isdrawing his imagery from Ezekiel's vision, which fixes the locality where theslaughter was to commence by speaking of the impending doom of the temple andthe City of Jerusalem. Russell also argues that Peter did not mentionBabylon by name in 1 Peter 5:13 because it was possible that the early churchalready associated Jerusalem with Babylon. The ancient enemy of Babylon wouldbe a fitting description of first century Judaism since both were oppressors ofGod's people. Thus, just as Peter associated Babylon with Jerusalem in 1 Peter5:13, John made the same association in Revelation 17-18. Babylon = Jerusalem proponents marshal other evidence insupport of their view. For example, they contend that Revelation's predictionsthat its prophecies will come to pass "shortly" or "quickly" (Rev 1:1; 2:16;3:11; 11:14; 22:6, 7, 12, 20) prevent Babylon from being interpreted asreferring to something centuries after the date of the original writing. Thislimitation is heightened by the fact that Revelation indicates that itsprophecies are "near" or "at hand" (Rev 1:3; 22:10) or are "about to" takeplace (Rev 1:19; 3:10). According to Jerusalem advocates, such a limitation atleast narrows the interpretive possibilities of the identity of Babylon inRevelation 17-18 so that the interpreter at least must consider Jerusalem,which was an immediate oppressor of God's people at the time John wrote theApocalypse.[44] Jerusalemadvocates also note that many commentators have observed that Revelationappears to be a reworking of the Olivet Discourse.[45]Russell observes numerous parallels between Revelation and the Olivet Discoursesuch as the Parousia, wars, famines,pestilence, earthquakes, false prophets, deceivers, signs and wonders, thedarkening of the sun and moon, stars falling from heaven, angels, trumpets,eagles, carcasses, great tribulation, woe, convulsions of nature, the treadingdown of Jerusalem, the gathering of the elect, the reward of the faithful, andthe judgment of the wicked.[46] These similarities allow Russell toconclude that same events that are predicted in the Olivet Discourse are alsopredicted in Revelation but only in "a more figurative and symbolical dress." Thisconnection between the Olivet Discourse and the Apocalypse is important forJerusalem advocates. It allows them to conclude that Revelation is about theapproaching judgment upon Israel and Jerusalem because Christ's prophecy on theMount of Olives is concerned about this same subject.[48] Thefact that the Olivet Discourse concerns primarily the imminent destruction ofIsrael and Jerusalem can be seen from various texts. For example, Matthew 24:15speaks of the desecration of the temple. Also, in Matthew 24:20, the Jews aretold to pray that their flight will not take place on the Sabbath. In sum,Jerusalem advocates maintain that it should come as no surprise that the harlotof Revelation 17-18 is identified with Jerusalem because the Olivet Discourseand its fuller exposition in Revelation concerns the imminent destruction uponIsrael and Jerusalem. Jerusalemproponents also argue that the New Testament often contrasts the Jerusalem fromabove and the Jerusalem from below (Gal 4:21-26; Heb 11:10, 16; 12:22). Theyalso observe that this same contrast continues into the Book of Revelation.There, the contrast is made between the holy city (Rev 21:2; 22:19) and thewicked city (Rev 17-18) and between the bride (Rev 21:9; 22:17) and the harlot(Rev 17:15-16). Interestingly, Revelation also refers to the New Jerusalem (Rev3:12; 21:2). Thus, viewing Revelation 17-18 as Jerusalem from below continuesthis contrast between the two cities. Such a view also continues the thematiccontrast of the two Jerusalems found throughout the New Testament. Therefore,it is appropriate to identify Babylon of Revelation 17-18 as Jerusalem. Oneof the stronger arguments used by Jerusalem proponents involves theidentification of the phrase "the great city" as used in Revelation 17:18.Jerusalem advocates contend that the only way to properly identify this city isto observe how the phrase "the great city" appears earlier in Revelation. Theare only two references to "the great city" prior to Revelation 17:18. Thesereferences include Revelation 11:8 and Revelation 16:19. Jerusalem advocatesbelieve that both are unmistakable references to Jerusalem. Thus, Revelation17:18 must refer to Jerusalem as well. Revelation11:8 says, "And their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city which spiritually is called Sodom andEgypt, where also our Lord was crucified." Here, the city of Jerusalem isobviously in view because it refers to the city where Christ was crucified.Thus, Revelation 11:8 applies the phrase "the great city" to Jerusalem. SinceBabylon of Revelation 17-18 is consistently designated as "the great city"(17:18; 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21), "the great city" of Babylon must also be areference to Jerusalem.[50] Jerusalem advocates believe thattheir argument is strengthened by the fact that Revelation 11:8 figurativelyrefers to Jerusalem as Sodom and Egypt. They conclude that if Jerusalem can befiguratively called Sodom and Egypt in Revelation 11:8, then she was also figurativelycalled Babylon in Revelation 17-18.[51] The other reference to the "great city" is Revelation16:19, which says, "Now the great city was divided into three parts, and thecities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to giveher the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath." Jerusalem advocatesbelieve that this reference to "the great city" also refers to Jerusalem. Theyarrive at this conclusion by noting that the division of the city into threeparts is an allusion to Ezekiel 5:1-5. There God told Ezekiel to cut his hairand divide it into three to depict the fate that the different sections ofJerusalem would experience during the Babylonian siege.[52] Fordobserves that the juxtaposition of the phrase "the great city" with the term"nations" suggests that "the great city" of Revelation 16:19 could not be agentile city such as Rome.[53] Jerusalem advocates believe that their case is furtherstrengthened by another reference found in Revelation 14 calling BabylonJerusalem. Revelation 14:20 says, "And the winepress was trampled outside thecity, and blood came out of the winepress, up to the horses' bridles, for onethousand six hundred furlongs." Because of the grapes/vine imagery that is sotypically associated with Israel throughout the Old Testament,[54] mostinterpreters identify the city of Revelation 14:20 as Jerusalem. Jerusalem advocates also point out numerous descriptorsof Babylon found in Revelation 17-18 that could only apply to Jerusalem. Forexample, the harlot imagery (17:1-2) was used most frequently of Israel's covenantunfaithfulness in the Old Testament (Isa 1:21; Jer 2:20-24, 30-33; 3:1-3, 8;Ezek 16; 23; Hos 9:1). Chilton explains that such imagery was typicallyassociated with Israel when God brought a covenant against His people. Chilton sees the reference to the wilderness inRevelation 17:3 to be an allusion to Israel's wilderness experience as depictedin Numbers 13-14.[60] Jerusalem advocates also see thereference to the harlot riding on the beast as an allusion to Israel'sdependence upon the Roman Empire for her existence and power. Theinterdependence between Israel and Rome is seen in the New Testament as Israelturned Jesus over to Rome to be crucified (John 19:12-16) and encouraged Rometo persecute the church (Acts 18:12-13).[61] Gentry points out that the color and adornment of theharlot in Revelation 17:4 reflects the Jewish priestly colors of scarlet,purple, and gold (Exod 28:33). These same colors were also found in thetapestry of the temple. [62] Beale notes that the combination ofthe words in the Greek that describe the harlot's garb is identical to the LXXdescription of the Jewish high priest's garments.[63]According to Beagley, the outward beauty of the cup and its inward impurity isreminiscent of Christ's denunciation of the Pharisees in Matthew 23:35. Jerusalem advocates maintain that Jerusalem best fitsthe description of the woman's persecution of the saints, apostles and prophets(Rev 17:6; 18:20, 24). Unlike Rome, Jerusalem was responsible for killing OldTestament prophets (Matt 23:35; Luke 1:50-51; Acts 7:52) in addition to the NewTestament saints and apostles.[66] Russell believes that Jerusalem alsofits the description of the city on seven hills as depicted in Revelation 17:9.He enumerates seven prominent hills found in Jerusalem. He also notes Psalm48:1, which depicts Jerusalem as "a city set upon a hill."[67]Russell also sees that it is possible to harmonize Jerusalem with seven kingsmentioned in Revelation 17:10 by taking the seven kings either symbolically oras Herodian kings or procurators of Judea.[68] Russell alsoharmonizes the Jerusalem view with the ten kings of Revelation 17:12 byinterpreting them as auxiliary chiefs and princes who were allies of Rome andreceived their commands from Rome during the Jewish War.[69] Most Jerusalem view advocates interpret the destructionof the harlot by the beast in Revelation 17:16-17 as Rome's siege of Jerusalemin A.D. 70. Beagley sees the stripping and burning of the harlot depicted inthese verses alluding back to similar Old Testament prophecies of Israel'sdestruction found in Ezekiel 16:35-41 and Hosea 2:3, 9-10.[70]Jerusalem advocates have different ways of explaining how their view can beharmonized with the description of the city reigning over the kings of theearth as described in Revelation 17:18. Russell notes that the term "earth"(gh) in the phrase "kings of the earth" can have a localized meaning elsewherein Scripture (Acts 4:26-27).[71] Chilton argues that Jerusalem did infact reign over the kings of the earth when she obeyed God and consequentlyexperienced the blessings of her covenant (Deut 28:1-14).[72] Fordcontends that the language of Revelation 17:18 is similar to hyperboliclanguage of Jerusalem's exaltation found in the Old Testament as well as otherearly Jewish sources.[73] Jerusalem advocates often interpret the description ofBabylon having become the dwelling place of demons (18:2) as the fulfillment ofChrist's prophecy found in Matthew 12:38-45 that Israel would be overrun bydemons as an act of judgment because of the nation's rejection of Him. Jerusalem advocates have explained the commercial itemsenumerated in Revelation 18:11-15 in various ways. Ford believes that most ofthese items were used in the temple.[77] Beagley understands them in thecontext of Judean imports.[78] Provan sees this section ofScripture as recalling the familiar Old Testament lament song pattern echoingGod's past judgment on pagan peoples rather than a description of economicdetails.[79] Most commentators see the analogy between Babylon'sdestruction and a millstone sinking to the bottom of the sea as an allusion toBabylon's destruction that is similarly described in Jeremiah 51:63. However,Beagley notes that Revelation 18:21 adds the phrase "like a great millstone"and replaces the term "the Euphrates" with "the sea." According to Beagley,this change is due to the author's desire to draw a parallel with Christ'swords in Matthew 18:6 rather than Jeremiah 51:63.[80] InMatthew 18:6, Christ warned that it would be better for a person to have amillstone tied around his neck and cast into the sea than to offend a littleone. Finally, Jerusalem advocates parallel the predictions of the cessation ofthe sound of music and the millstone and the shining of the light (Rev18:22-23) with similar Old Testament prophecies relating to Israel'sdestruction (Jer 7:34; 16:9-13; 25:10). WeaknessesGeneral ProblemsBeforeresponding to some of the specific arguments advanced by Jerusalem advocates, Iwill first specify some general weaknesses with the position. To begin with, torefer Jerusalem to Babylon is unprecedented.[81] While Scripturetypically relates Jerusalem to the people of God, it relates Babylon to theworld.[82] Although Sodom and Egypt haveprecedent for being used as a metaphor for Jerusalem, Babylon is never used inthis way.[83] Also, there is no example in Jewishliterature of the use of the name Babylon for Jerusalem.[84] Moreover,if the Babylon = Jerusalem hypothesis is correct then Jerusalem will never berebuilt again. Revelation 18:21-23 describes the permanent destruction ofBabylon. Revelation 18:21 says, "Thus withviolence the great city Babylon shall be thrown down, and shall not be foundanymore." Thus, according to the Babylon = Jerusalem view, Jerusalem wasdestroyed in A.D. 70 and will never be rebuilt again. Yet, how can this be adescription of Jerusalem when scripture repeatedly speaks of its return toprominence during the millennial reign (Isa 2:3; Zech 14:16; Rev 20:9).Scripture is quite plain that God still has a plan for ethnic Israel and yetthe Jerusalem view seems to teach the opposite.[85] Furthermore,the description of the harlot in Revelation 17-18 seems to communicate herheavy involvement with idolatry.[86] This seems to be communicated byterms such as "spiritual adultery," "unclean things," and "abominations." Thisis an odd description of first century Jerusalem in light of the fact that thecity of that era was strictly monotheistic and never compromised with theidolatry of their pagan neighbors.[87] First century Jews recognizedidolatry had caused the Babylonian captivity. This recognition had the effectof curing the nation of that particular sin. Inaddition, while idealist, historicist, and futurist interpretations ofRevelation can be sustained regardless of whether one assigns a Neronic orDomitianic date to John's Apocalypse, the type of preterist interpretationadvocated by Gentry, Chilton, and Russell does not enjoy the same luxury.Because Revelation 17-18 obviously cannot be a prophecy about the destructionof Jerusalem in A.D. 70 if these prophecies were written 25 years later, theJerusalem view has a tendency to rise or fall depending on whether one assignsan early or late date to the book. This generalization, of course, exempts thework of Provan who argues for a late date while seeing Revelation 17-18 as an exeventu prophecy that is merelyreminiscent of the A.D. 70 event. It is interesting to observe Jerusalem advocateseither expressly or tacitly admitting their dependence upon an early date.According to preterist R.C. Sproul, "If the book was written after A.D. 70,then its contents do not manifestly refer to the events surrounding the fall ofJerusalem-unless the book is a wholesale fraud, having been composed after thepredicted events had already occurred."[88] Similarly, upon reviewingthe Revelation commentary called Days of Vengeance of fellow preterist David Chilton, Gentry noted,"If it could be demonstrated that Revelation were written 25 years after theFall of Jerusalem, Chilton's entire labor goes up in smoke."[89] Needlessto say, Jerusalem advocates must go out of their way to demonstrateRevelation's early date. This explains why Gentry devoted his doctoraldissertation to the subject of Revelation's early date. The content of thisdissertation was later published in his book Before Jerusalem Fell.[90] The Jerusalem view's dependence onRevelation's early date is also demonstrated by a recent Dallas TheologicalSeminary master's thesis arguing for identifying Babylon of Revelation 17-18 asJerusalem. In this thesis, the author devotes an entire chapter towarddefending Revelation's early date.[91] Theproblem with the Jerusalem view's dependence upon assigning an early date toRevelation is that most modern New Testament scholars will not date the bookthat early. Thus, Gentry is candid in his admission that his assignment of anearly date for the book has caused him to swim against the tide of contemporaryopinion.[92] I believe that most of the externaland internal arguments for Revelation's early date have already beensuccessfully rebutted.[93] In sum, the Jerusalem view'sdependence upon an early date places it in a precarious situation. D. A Carsonechoes such a sentiment when issuing the following critique of Chilton'scommentary: Chilton ties his interpretation of the entire book to a dogmatic insistencethat it was written before A.D. 70, and that its predictions are focused on thedestruction of Jerusalem. Although there are some excellent theological linkscrafted in this book, the central setting and argument are so weak and open tocriticism that I cannot recommend the work very warmly.[94]
The Jerusalem view is further weakened to the extent that it appearsto come on the scene rather late in church history. Frost explains: The postmillennialism and partial preterism of Gentry and Seraiah is not ofthe fathers. It hardly bears resemblance. Gentry borrowing form late nineteenthcentury theologian Milton Terry interprets the Babylonian whore in Revelation17:1-ff to be Jerusalem in the age of Paul. This is brand new. No father taughtthis that we are aware of. For nearly two thousand years this view neverbreathed, if and only if we are to maintain that all eschatology can be foundin these writings.[95]
Finally,the Jerusalem view has problems handling the global language found inRevelation 17-18 and Matthew 24. For example, the waters on which the womansits (Rev 17:1) are later defined as peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues(Rev 17:5). Except for the replacement of tribes with multitudes, these are thesame categories are mentioned in Revelation 5:9 regarding those for whom Christdied.[96] Thus, viewing the categories ofRevelation 17:15 as pertaining to the local situation of A.D. 70 logicallyleads to the conclusion that Christ only died for those within the same localizedsphere rather than the whole world. This example illustrates the daunting taskJerusalem advocates face. Because of their prior understanding that Revelationpertains to the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70, Jerusalem advocates areforced to allegorize Revelation's global language into local language.Jerusalem advocates face similar problems upon encountering global languageelsewhere in Revelation 17-18 (Rev 17:18). As previously indicated, Jerusalemadvocates view Revelation as merely a fuller exposition of the OlivetDiscourse. Because they see the Olivet Discourse as a warning of Jerusalem'simminent destruction, Jerusalem advocates also face the problem of handlingglobal and futuristic language in the Olivet Discourse (Matt 24:15, 21-22, 27,29, 30-31). Specific ArgumentsNowthat some of the general weaknesses of the Jerusalem view have been presented,I will now respond to some of the previously mentioned arguments advanced byJerusalem proponents. To begin with, stronger arguments can be made for eithera literal understanding of Babylon or Roman identification of Babylon in 1Peter 5:13 than for a Jerusalem identification of Babylon. The Roman view hasin its favor tradition that places Peter in Rome during his later years as wellas extra biblical writings indicating that Babylon was a common way ofreferring to Rome. The Jerusalem view is unable to marshal similar evidence.Thus, most scholars believe that Peter was referring to Rome rather thanJerusalem in 1 Peter 5:13. The strengths of a literal interpretation of 1 Peter5:13 will be explored later on. Second,Revelation's timing texts do not limit the scope of its fulfillment to thefirst century. It is possible to understand the timing texts qualitativelyrather than chronologically. In other words, these texts could indicate themanner of Christ's return rather than when he will return. Thus, when theaction comes, it will come suddenly with great rapidity.[97]Moreover, the action is to be regarded as impending as if it could be fulfilledat any moment.[98] The New Testament allows for such ausage. For example, while it is true that Scripture often uses "shortly" or"quickly" (tacos) in a chronological sense to indicate when (1 Timothy 3:14),Scripture also uses the same word in a qualitative sense. For instance, Acts22:18 uses tacos to indicate manner when it says, "Make haste, and get out ofJerusalem quickly, because they will not accept your testimony about me." In addition, the Septuagint often uses tavcos qualitatively in propheticpassages.[99] It is obvious that the use of tavcos in the followingpassages cannot be chronological and therefore must be qualitative becausecontextually these prophetic passages would not find their fulfillment forhundreds and even thousands of years after they were written. For example,Isaiah 13:22 says, "Her (Israel) fateful time will soon come" This verse waswritten around 700 B.C. and predicted Israel's destruction under Babylon thatdid not occur until 539 B.C. Isaiah 51:5 says, My righteousness is near, My salvation has goneforth, And My arms will judge the peoples; The coastlands will wait upon Me,And on My arm they will trust." Many scholars believe that this passage willnot be fulfilled until the millennium. Similar Septuagint uses of the timingphrases utilized in Revelation can be found in Isaiah 5:26; 13:6; 58:8; Joel1:15; 2:1; 3:14. Also,the argument regarding Jerusalem from above and Jerusalem from below would bepersuasive as a secondary argument only if it is first exegetically establishedthat Jerusalem is in view in Revelation 17-18. However, Jerusalem proponentsare not able to leap this initial hurdle. Finally, the argument that "the greatcity" of Revelation 17-18 is identical to "the great city" of Jerusalem foundearlier in Revelation 11:8 represents a hermeneutical error known as"illegitimate totality transfer." Thiserror arises when the meaning of a word or phrase as derived from its useelsewhere is then automatically read into the same word or phrase in a foreigncontext.[100] Jerusalem advocates commit such anerror when they define "the great city" in Revelation 17-18 from how the samephrase is used in totally different contexts elsewhere in Revelation. The sameerror occurs when the identification of "city" in Revelation 14:20 is then readback into the same word in an entirely different context in verse 8 of the samechapter. Such a hermeneutical approach neglects the possibility that Revelationcould be highlighting two "great" cities. Both the city of Jerusalem and thecity of Babylon could be separately designated "the great city." Moreover, one of the earlier references to "the greatcity" that Jerusalem advocates believe is speaking of Jerusalem may not be areference to Jerusalem at all. As previously indicated Jerusalem proponentsbelieve that Revelation 16:19 is speaking of Jerusalem because its divisioninto three parts is identical to the destruction of Jerusalem as portrayed inthe Old Testament (Ezek 5). However, equating Babylon and Jerusalem on thebasis of similarities between Revelation 16:19 and Ezekiel 5 may beunwarranted. John may simply be borrowing familiar imagery from Israel's pastdestruction and applying it in Revelation 17-18 for purposes of communicatingthe manner of Babylon's future destruction. Descriptive Words and Phrases from Revelation17-18 Itshould first be observed that similarity of language between Revelation 17-18and Old Testament Jerusalem does not necessarily indicate that John isidentifying Babylon as Jerusalem. John may simply be borrowing familiar imageryfrom Israel's past destruction and applying to Babylon in Revelation 17-18 inorder to clearly communicate the manner of Babylon's future destruction. Inaddition, a scrutiny of some of the parallels between Revelation 17-18 and OldTestament Jerusalem that are relied on by Jerusalem advocates demonstrates thatthey are not as convincing as perhaps they initially appear. For example, theharlot imagery (Rev 17:1, 5) need not automatically refer back to God'saccusations of Israel as an unfaithful harlot. Thomas notes that the angeldescribing the woman uses the term pornh (harlotry) rather than moiceia(adultery). The latter word is more restrictive implying a previous maritalrelationship. Although pornh can include adultery, it is much broader. Thus, itis possible that the woman represents all false religions of all time ratherthan just the spiritual unfaithfulness of God's covenant people Israel. Inaddition, as previously indicated, Jerusalem proponents believe Revelation17:3, which describes the woman riding the beast, refers to the alleged firstcentury alliance between Jerusalem and Rome. However, Thomas questions whethersuch imagery is consistent with that historical situation when he observes,"Rome's prolonged siege and destruction of Jerusalem from the late 60's to 70hardly gives the impression of any alliance between the Jews and the Romans." possiblethat the references to prophets in these verses could refer to New Testamentprophets such as Agabus (Acts 11:28; 21:10). If this is the case, then thepossibility opens for another political power besides Israel to be thepersecutor that is depicted in Revelation 17:6; 18:20, 24. Finally,Russell's understanding of gh in Revelation 17:18 as the local land of Canaanis unsatisfactory. Although the term "earth" (gh') can have a local meaning inthe New Testament and the LXX by referring to the land of Israel (1 Sam 13:19;Zech 12:12; Matt 2:9), the word can also have a universal meaning by referringto all the earth (Gen 1:1). Thus, the meaning of the term depends upon thecontext in which it is used. The global emphasis of the immediate context (Rev17:15) argues for gh' to be given a global rather than local understanding. Rome Themost common approach among New Testament scholarship is to identify Babylon ofRevelation 17-18 as Rome. This interpretive approach is essentiallyhistoricist. It sees Revelation's prophecies regarding Babylon as finding theirfulfillment in the life and destruction of the Roman Empire. Thus, theprophecies of Revelation 17-18 span from the date of the book's compositionuntil Rome's destruction in A.D. 476. Like the previously discussed Jerusalemoption, this approach is predicated largely upon the assumption that John wasspeaking of an entity that posed an imminent threat to the churches of hisimmediate era. Aune is one of the most visible proponents of this position. TheBabylon = Rome view is largely built upon the presupposition that the nameBabylon was a common way that early Christians had of disguising their mentionof Rome. The early Christians supposedly engaged in this practice in order toavoid detection from Rome and thus insulate themselves from Roman persecution.The reason that the early Christians selected the name Babylon to be used forRome is that Babylon and Rome are comparable in a variety of ways. For example,both were centers for world empires. Moreover, both captured Jerusalem anddestroyed the temple.[109] Thus, the Babylon = Rome hypothesispresupposes that John employed such imagery in light of the destruction of thetemple that was first executed by Babylon and subsequently reenacted by Rome. In addition, there are five oracles against Babylon inthe Old Testament (Isa 13:1-22; 14:22-23; 21:1-10; Jer 25:12-14; 50:1-51:64).Rome proponents assume that John in Revelation 17-18 has transferred thehostility that the prophets had toward historical Babylon to Rome. Advocatesof the Rome view employ some general arguments in reaching the conclusion thatthe identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 is actually Rome. To begin with,Rome advocates rely upon the symbolic nature of the Book of Revelation. Romeproponents Pate and Hays explain: The extensive use of symbolism and figurative language by the apostle Johnto convey specific statements at least opens the door to the possibility thatthe terms Babylon may besymbolic as well. In fact, since practically all other terms in Revelation17-18 are symbols (harlot, beast, horns, etc.), understanding the term Babylonin a symbolic sense would reflect a more consistent interpretation of thispassage than that of interpreting this term alone as literal reference.
Romeproponents further point out that Babylon should be understood in more of asymbolic rather than literal way based upon the use of the word "mystery"(musthrion) in Revelation 17:5. Robertson believes that musthrion is part ofthe woman's full name "Mystery Babylon the Great." He also believes that theword "mystery" connotes the notion of mysticism or symbolism. Thus, heconcludes, "the name Babylon is to be interpreted mystically or spiritually(cf. pneumatikws 11:8) for Rome."[114] Moreover,the assumption of Rome advocates that the early Christians commonly used thename Babylon for Rome is built around two pieces of evidence. These two piecesof evidence include Peter's mention of Babylon as his place of writing in 1Peter 5:13 and references in extra biblical literature equating Rome withBabylon. Regarding 1 Peter 5:13, Rome advocates cite several reasons to supportthe conclusion that Peter was speaking of Rome rather than literal Babylon in 1Peter 5:13.[115] First, tradition places Peter inRome at the end of his life.[116] Second, according to 1 Peter 5:13,one of Peter's companions was Mark. Mark was with Paul during his first Romanimprisonment (Col 4:10; Phlm 22-23) and may have accompanied Timothy to Romefor the second incarceration (2 Tim 4:11). Therefore, it is more rational toassume that Peter and Mark got together in Rome rather than in Babylon. Third,Peter and Mark are never associated with the literal city of Babylon. No wherein Scripture or in extra biblical Christian material does one find a referenceto Peter or Mark visiting Babylon.[117] Fourth, a consultation with a mapdemonstrates that the letter must have been sent from the West or Rome becauseof the order in which the names or provinces appear. Fifth, Scripture depictsPeter's ministry moving northward from Canaan to Syrian Antioch (Gal 2:11) andthen Westward to Corinth (1 Cor 1:12) in the direction of Rome. Sixth, therewas no reason for Peter to visit Babylon. Because of the Babylonian Captivity,a large number of Jews continued to reside in the East. However, in the lastyears of Caligula's life (Caligula died in A.D. 41), there was a persecution ofthe Jews in Babylon. Consequently, many of these Jews migrated to Selucia. Fiveyears later a plague diminished their number further.[118]Thus, historians of the day referred to Babylon as uninhabited, declining, anddeserted.[119] Seventh, because Peter usesfigurative language elsewhere (1 Peter 1:2, 13; 2:4), it is likely that he isalso employing figurative language in 1 Peter 5:13. Perhaps Peter refers toBabylon figuratively in this verse in order to build upon the exile motif thathe has been using throughout the epistle. Eighth, because other cities are usedin a figurative sense elsewhere in Scripture (Gal 4:25; Rev 11:8), Peter isprobably referring to the city of Babylon figuratively here as well. Ninth, themajority of New Testament scholars believe that Peter is referring to Rome inverse 13. Thus, Peter was obviously speaking figuratively of Rome through hisuse of the term Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13. Regardingthe references in extra biblical literature equating Babylon and Rome, both theSibylline Oracles (V. 143,159-60, 434) and the Apocalypse of Baruch (10:1-3; 11:1; 67:7) use Babylon as a code name for Rome. BecauseRome advocates believe that these Christian writings were composed during thesame general time period as John's composition of the Apocalypse, it is likelythat John was also drawing from the common Christian understanding that Babylonwas a code word for Rome when writing Revelation 17-18. Pate and Hays buttresstheir position by noting the many parallels between Revelation 17-18 and the SibyllineOracles. In both writings, Romeis called Babylon, Rome is portrayed as an immoral woman, and this immoralwoman sits by the banks of the Tiber River.[120] TheRome view is also built upon the assumption that the seven hills of Revelation17:9 identify the topography of the ancient city of Rome. Because literature ofthe ancient world contains dozens of references to the even hills of Rome, Inaddition, the notion that John's audience would have understood the imagery ofRevelation 17 as referring to the topography of Rome seems strengthened by thediscovery of the Dea Roma Coinminted in A.D. 71 in Asia Minor. One side of the coin contains the portrait ofthe emperor. The reverse side of the coin depicts Roma, a Roman pagan goddess,sitting on seven hills seated by the waters of the Tiber River. Romeproponents also build their case upon Revelation 17:18. This verse says, "And the woman whom you saw is that great citywhich reigns over the kings of the earth." Rome advocates maintain that such adescription would have been immediately identifiable as Rome to John's originalaudience because it was the city ruling the known world at the time John wrote.Keener expresses such a sentiment when commenting on Revelation 17:18.According to Keener: In John's day, no one in the Roman Empire could havedoubted that the city that "reigns over the kings of the earth' meant Rome, anymore than anyone would have doubted that the seven hills (17:9) alluded toRome.[127] Descriptive Words andPhrases from Revelation 17-18 Rome advocates also point out numerous descriptions ofBabylon found in Revelation 17-18 that apply to Rome. For example, Auneobserves that in the Old Testament, prostitution imagery (Rev 17:1-2, 5) is notjust applicable to Israel but also to pagan cites such as Tyre (Isa 23:16-17)and Nineveh (Nah 3:4). In addition, the water imagery (Rev 17:1) is reminiscentof the goddess on the Dea Roma Coin who was seated by the rivers of the Tiber River. Aune sees the reference to the woman's drunkenness withthe blood of the saints (Rev 17:6; 18:24) as descriptive of the numerousChristian martyrdoms perpetrated at the hands of the Roman Empire. Aune sees the wealth of Babylon that is described fourtimes in chapter 18 (vv. 3, 9, 16-17, 19) as alluding to the massive wealthaccumulated by the Roman government through its oppressive taxation system. Beforeresponding to some of the specific arguments advanced by Rome advocates, I willfirst specify some general weaknesses with this position. To begin with, mostinterpreters who identify the harlot as Rome also identify the beast as Rome.Gregg remarks, "That the beast from the sea is closely identified with Romewill scarcely be disputed by members of most interpretive schools." Ifthese two characters represent the same entity, why are they depicted as twoseparate entities in verse 11 and 18 of chapter 17? Why is the beast punishedin chapter 19 after the harlot has already been destroyed in chapter 18? Ifthese two characters represent the same entity, how are they able to interactwith one another? Revelation 17:3 depicts the woman as riding on the beast. Howcan Rome ride upon Rome? Revelation 17:16-17 depicts the beast destroying thewoman. How can Rome destroy Rome?[141] Perhaps it is possible to proposethat the imagery could be satisfied through Nero's burning of Rome in A.D. 64.However, the destruction of Rome portrayed in Revelation 17:16-17 cannot be apicture of Nero burning Rome because Nero did not destroy Rome in its entirety.Rather, he only wanted to destroy a part of Rome in order to make room for abuilding project.[142] In sum, the imagery makes moresense if Rome destroys a rival power. This fact should prevent interpretersfrom identifying the woman as Rome. Inaddition, the geographic situation depicted in Revelation 18 has made somecommentators reluctant to identify Babylon as Rome. Some commentaries observethat Rome was not a major seaport or trading city.[143]Rome was never a great city of commerce described in Revelation 18. Furthermore, like theJerusalem view, the Rome view also has difficulty handling the global languageof Revelation found in Revelation Rev 17:15. While Rome exercised jurisdictionover the known world of John's day, it never exercised the type of globalcontrol that is spoken of in Revelation 17:15. No single historical city,especially Rome, can meet all of the criteria that John mentions in Revelation17-18.[147] Specific ArgumentsNow that some of the general weaknesses of the Rome view have beenpresented, I will respond to some of the previously mentioned argumentsadvanced by Rome proponents. To begin with, it is odd for Pate and Hays tocontend that their approach of identifying Babylon as Rome takes intoconsideration Revelation's symbolic character while they simultaneouslyinterpret other aspects of Revelation 17-18 with extreme literalness. Forexample, Rome advocates interpret the seven hills (Rev 17:9) literally. Theirnumber, location, and topographical characteristics are not approachedsymbolically by Rome advocates. It is interesting to note that although theBabylon view is typically labeled as "overly literalistic," most Babylonproponents do not take the seven hills literally. Thus, at least on this point,it seems that the Babylon interpretation rather than the Rome interpretationbetter takes into account Revelation's symbolic character. Moreover, Romeproponents also interpret the word "city" (Rev 17:18) literally. Despite thefact that some Rome advocates believe that their approach best takes intoaccount Revelation's symbolic character, it appears these same interpretershave no problem vacillating toward literalism when necessary in order tofurnish further support for their view. Moreover,it is debatable whether musthrion in Revelation 17:5 has the nuance that A.T.Robertson attaches to it. Several issues seem to be at stake.[148]The first question is whether musthrion should be interpreted as being inapposition with ovnoma? If not, John would be saying that the nameon the woman's forehead is "Mystery Babylon the Great." If so, John would besaying that the name "Babylon the Great" written upon the woman's forehead is amystery. Although most Rome proponents prefer viewing musthrion as not being inapposition to ovnoma, the evidence seems to favor the secondoption. Walvoord observes: The word mystery is a descriptive reference to the title, not part of thetitle itself as implied by the capitalization in the Authorized Version. Thiscan be seen by comparing the name given to the woman in 16:19 and 18:2.
Thus, the repetition ofthe woman's title as "Babylon the Great" (14:8; 16:19; 18:2) rather than"Mystery Babylon the Great" favors the appositional relationship. Second,does musthrion refer to mysticism or simply new revelation? Although most Romeproponents take the word in the first sense, the New Testament evidence seemsto support the latter sense. According to Vine In the N.T, it [musthrion] denotes, not the mysterious (as with the Eng.word), but that which, being outside the range of unassisted naturalapprehension, can be made known only by Divine revelation, and is made known ina manner and at a time appointed by God, and to those who are illumined by HisSpirit.[151]
Hoehner's word study ofmusthrion demonstrates this understanding as well.[152] Third,can musthrion of Revelation 17:5 be equated with "spiritually" (pneumatikws) ofRevelation 11:8 to support the notion that Babylon of Revelation 17:5 deservesthe same type of spiritual interpretation that is given to Jerusalem inRevelation 11:8? Thomas believes that such a comparison is inappropriate.Musthrion is a noun and not an adverb like pneumatikws. In addition, musthrioncomes from a different root than pneumatikws.[153] Insum, John in Revelation 17:5 does not seem to be saying that the woman's nameis to be understood mystically or symbolically. Rather, he seems to be simplysaying that the revelation of Babylon's dominant role in the end times is apreviously unknown truth now revealed. Furthermore,it is also debatable that the Christians of John's day commonly used Rome as acode for Babylon. The evidence favoring such a code is built upon certainassumptions that may or may not be true. For example, it is possible that Peteris referring to literal Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 rather than Rome. Astraightforward reading of the text would lead readers to this conclusion. There is no reason to suspect that Peter asserted a symbolic name into anon-symbolic context. The normal reading of the passage would cause the readerto think of the literal reading on the Euphrates.[156]
Moule argues that thatthe epistle contains nothing that requires the use of such a code. Inaddition, if one interprets the geographic areas in the greeting section of theletter literally (1:1), then consistency seems to dictate that the geographicarea mentioned in the conclusion of the epistle (5:13) deserves the sameliteral interpretation. A literal interpretation of Babylon becomes even morecompelling to the extent that it is recognized that 1 Peter was written to apredominantly Jewish audience. His use of the word "diaspora" in 1:1 alwaysrefers to Jews in all of its New Testament uses (John 7:35; James 1:1) and LXX(Deut 28:25; 30:4; Isa 49:6; Ps 174:2; 2 Macc 1:27). If Babylon refers toBabylon in all of its Old Testament uses, why would 1 Peter 5:13 be theexception considering Peter's Jewish audience? AlthoughPeter does use figurative language in other sections of his letter, this factdoes not automatically lead to the conclusion that Peter is employing figurativelanguage in 5:13. Each use of figurative language must be proven from itsimmediate context rather than how the author employs figurative meaning in aremote context. In addition, it is difficult to argue that 1 Peter 5:13 isdescribing a figurative city just as cities are used in a non-literal fashionin Galatians 4:24-25 and Revelation 11:8. In Galatians 4:24-25, the text itselfuses the word "allegorically" to explain that the city of Jerusalem is beingfiguratively used of Hagar, Mount Sinai, and the Old Covenant. Similarly,Revelation 11:8 uses the word "spiritually" to demonstrate that Jerusalem isbeing used figuratively of Sodom and Egypt. However, no similar designationsare specified regarding the city of Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13. Although themajority of scholars believe that Peter was referring to Rome in 1 Peter 5:13rather than literal Babylon, it is interesting to note that many prominentinterpreters throughout church history have held to the literal Babyloninterpretation. These prominent interpreters include Erasmus, Calvin, Hort,Gregory, Alford, Mayor, Moorehead, and Thiessen.[158] Whileit is true that there is no evidence outside of the epistle of Peter's visit toBabylon, there is no evidence to contradict it either.[159]There may be evidence testifying to Peter's visit to Babylon that we are notyet aware of.[160] Moreover, Babylon would have been alogical place for Peter to visit. Because of the Babylonian Captivity, a largenumber of Jews continued to reside in that area. Not only did the Magi comefrom that region (Matt 2:2), but pilgrims from Mesopotamia also came to hearPeter's sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:9).[161]The persecution of the Jews in Babylon and subsequent plague does not precludetheir increase in number and return to Babylon during the twenty years thatintervened in between these events and the writing of Peter's epistle. Aspreviously mentioned, the notion that Babylon was a code word that earlyChristians used to disguise their reference to Rome is not only built uponPeter's use of Babylon in 1 Peter 5:13 but also upon the Sibylline Oracles (V. 143, 159-60, 434) and the Apocalypse ofBaruch (10:1-3; 11:1; 67:7),which both use Babylon as a code name for Rome. However, the hypothesis thatsuch a practice was common in John's day is only workable to the extent thatthese writings were composed during the time period when John wrote. Thisassumption is not necessarily true. Klijndates the Apocalypse of Baruchin the second century.[164] Although Collins appears to leantowards a first century dating of Book 5 of the Sibylline Oracles, he remains open to the suggestion that the SibyllineOracles as a whole can be datedin the early years of the second century.[165] Kreitzer accepts thereign of Hadrian (A.D. 117-138) as a date for the composition of SibyllineOracles 5.[166]Thomas dates both the Apocalypse of Baruch and the Sibylline Oracles in the second century noting that they were composed quite a whileafter John wrote Revelation.[167] Interestingly, Thomas alsoindicates that Tertullian late in the second century is the first church fatherto use Babylon as a name for Rome.[168] Becauseall of these writings may have been composed after John's era, their use ofBabylon as a code for Rome only proves that such a practice came into existenceafter John wrote Revelation. Therefore, because this practice may have comeinto prominence after his era, it is difficult to dogmatically say that Johnwas employing this practice when he mentioned Babylon in Revelation 17-18. Insum, given the notions that Peter could have been referring to literal Babylonin 1 Peter 5:13 and that the extra biblical Christian writings using Babylon asa code word for Rome may have been composed long after John wrote theApocalypse, it is difficult to dogmatically assert that John was employing thewell entrenched practice of his day that Babylon refers to Rome when he wroteRevelation 17-18. Aspreviously indicated, the Rome position is also built upon the notion thatJohn's description of Babylon in Revelation 17-18 would have been immediatelyrecognizable to John's original audience as Rome. Rome advocates appeal to theseven hills (Rev 17:9) as descriptive of Rome's topography. They also appeal tothe "great city which reigns over the kings of the earth" (Rev 17:18) as adescriptive phrase for Rome that any first century person would recognize. Theyalso appeal to similarities between the Dea Roma Coin and Revelation 17-18 to support theassertion that John's description of Babylon would be understood as Rome byJohn's original audience. However, the assumption that John's apocalypse waswritten exclusively for the purpose of being understood by the people of hisday is open to question.[169] Walvoord explains: One of the common assumptions of those who reject the futurist position isthat the Apocalypse is the creation of John's thinking and was understandableby him in his generationThe difficulty with this point of view is twofold: (1)Prophecy, as given in the Scripture, was not necessarily understandable by thewriter or his generation, as illustrated in the case of Daniel (Dan 12:4, 9).It is questionable whether the great prophets of the Old Testament alwaysunderstood what they were writing (cf. 1 Peter 1:10-11). (2) It is of thenature of prophecy that often it cannot be understood until the time of thegeneration which achieves fulfillment. The assumption, therefore, that thebook of Revelation was understandable in the first generation or that it wasintended to be understood by that generation is without real basis.
Evenif Revelation was intended to be understood by John's original audience, it isdoubtful whether the seven hills of Revelation 17:9 are descriptive of thetopography of Rome. Several reasons call this interpretation into question.First, this interpretation is suspect because those who employ it frequentlyemploy a dual hermeneutic resulting in hermeneutical vacillation. For example,Aune takes the seven hills (17:9) literally,[171] the seven kings(17:10) symbolically,[172] and the ten kings (17:12)literally.[173] Such an inconsistent approachleaves the impression that Aune arbitrarily vacillates back and forth betweenhermeneutical approaches based upon what fits his preconceived system. Second,it seems odd that the seven hills should be equated with the well-knowntopography of Rome because verse 9 indicates that the identification of thehills calls for special wisdom. Why should such a well-known geographicallocale to John's first century audience require special theological and symbolicinsight for proper identification?[174] Third,it is unclear that John's audience would have automatically understood thereference in 17:9 to the seven hills of Rome. Although Rome was known as thecity on the seven hills, it is interesting to note that eight and possibly ninehills could be counted for Rome.[175] Moreover, because every otheroccurrence to ovros in Revelation refers to a mountain ratherthan a "hill,"[176] Ewing advises caution beforeautomatically viewing 17:9 as a reference to the seven "hills" of Rome. Fourth,if the reference to the city on the seven hills was universally well-known inJohn's day as a reference to Rome, how would the use of this reference insulateJohn or his readers from Roman persecution? Those found with a copy of thedocument within their possession would be immediately suspected of advocatingthe overthrow of the capital of the Roman Empire. Thus, there is no security tobe gained by using the phrase "seven hills."[180] Fifth,the reference to the seven mountains (17:9) which are seven heads (17:8)actually belong to the beast (17:3, 7; 13:1) and not the woman named Babylon.Thus, these seven heads or mountains really have nothing to do with the entityBabylon at all. It is possible to argue that the woman is still associated withthe seven hills because she is sitting on them. However, it is better to seethis as referring to the woman's control rather than her location. The otherreferences to the woman sitting also refer to her control. Revelation 17:1portrays the woman sitting on many waters. Verse 15 explains that the watersrepresent peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues. Thus, Revelation 17:1, 15show the harlot's control over the entire world. Furthermore, Revelation 17:3depicts the woman as sitting on the beast, which again indicates control ratherthan location. Thus, if the harlot's sitting indicates control rather thanlocation twice in chapter 17, then consistency would seem to dictate that theharlot sitting on the seven hills in 17:9 would also indicate control ratherthan location.[181] Sixth,the reference to the seven hills is better understood as referring to sevenkingdoms. In order to correctly understand the symbolism of the sevenmountains, it is necessary to look beyond the immediate culture of John's dayand instead to look to John's Jewish heritage. Thus, Revelation must beinterpreted in light of the Old Testament.[182] Such an approachmakes sense because 278 of Revelation's 404 verses allude to the Old Testament. The book of Revelation is the most thoroughly Jewish in its language andimagery of any New Testament book. The book speaks not the language of Paul,but of the Old Testament prophets Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel.[184]
The Old Testamentfrequently uses the term "mountain" to refer to a kingdom or empire (Ps 30:7;68:15-16; Isa 2:2; 41:15; Jer 51:25; Dan 2:35, 45; Hab 3:6, 10; Zech 4:7). Thistype of imagery seems to be employed in Revelation 17:9 because verse 10explains that the seven mountains are a metaphor for seven kings. This symbolicunderstanding of the seven mountains seems buttressed by the fact that theharlot sits on or beside seven mountains (17:9) just as she sits on or besidethe many waters (17:1). Since the waters are symbolic of peoples, multitudes,nations, and tongues (17:15), consistency seems to dictate that the sevenmountains are symbolic as well.[186] This non-literal interpretation ofthe seven hills is also strengthened by the fact that the other references to ovros inRevelation are sometimes to be understood non-literally as well (Rev 8:8). AlthoughRevelation 17:10 uses the word "kings," kingdoms or national entities opposingGod's people throughout world history is probably the intended meaning.Expositors face numerous difficulties when they interpret the content ofRevelation 17:10 as seven kings of Roman history. For example, in order toapply the seven kings to Roman history, most interpreters leave out Galba,Otho, and Vitellius who reigned briefly between Nero and Vespasian. But anancient writer could no more have omitted them from his list of emperors than amodern American historian could omit William Henry Harrison, the ninthpresident, who caught pneumonia at his inauguration in 1841 and died a monthlater.[188]
Moreover,it is unclear with which emperor the count should begin. For example, shouldthe count begin with Julius Caesar who appears first in the list in most of theancient sources or with Augustus, who was the emperor in power when the empireofficially began? Perhaps the count should begin with Caligula, who was thefirst persecuting emperor? Should we count all of the emperors or only thosedeified by an act of the Senate? Consequently, Aune enumerates nine differentschemes for counting the kings.[189] Beale designates five such schemes. Onthe other hand, these interpretive problems are avoided when the seven kings ofRevelation 17:10 are understood as kingdoms opposing God' people throughoutworld history. In the book of Daniel, the term's kings and kingdoms are usedinterchangeably. In Daniel 2:37-38, Danielwrote that the head of gold is a king. In Daniel 2:39, Daniel wrotethat the breast and arms of silver were another kingdom.[194]Similarly, in Daniel 7:17, Daniel describes the four beasts as kings. In Daniel7:23, he describes the fourth beast as a kingdom.[195]Thus, Daniel obviously uses kings and kingdoms interchangeably. BecauseRevelation draws heavily from Daniel, it is likely that John in Revelation17:10 is employing this same practice. Walvoord identifies the seven kingdomsas those that have persecuted and will persecute Israel throughout herexistence. The five fallen kingdoms include Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia,and Greece. Rome was the kingdom reigning when John wrote. The seventh kingdomwill be the revived Roman Empire headed by the antichrist.[196] Insum, Kiddle is correct when he observes that Revelation 17:9-10 refers to thescope and nature of the beast's power rather than to the physical layout of theCity of Rome.[197] Descriptive Words andPhrases from Revelation 17-18Ascrutiny of some of the parallels between Revelation 17-18 and Rome that arerelied on by Rome advocates demonstrates that they are not as convincing asperhaps they initially appear. For example, as mentioned earlier, the waterimagery of 17:1 seems inapplicable to Rome since Rome had no seaport and moreapplicable to Babylon which was located on the bank of the Euphrates. Moreover,the notion that the forehead writing (Rev 17:5) is an allusion to prostitutesof the Greco-Roman culture wearing headbands inscribed with their names isquestionable. Some scholars are questioning the historicity of this practicealtogether.[198] Furthermore, the Christian martyrdoms supposedly alludedto in Revelation 17:6 and 18:24 do not uniquely identify Rome due to the factthat Israel (Matt 23:35; Acts 7:52) and historical Babylon (Jer 51:35, 36, 49)were also causes of such martyrdoms. In addition, it is doubtful that John wasreferring to the Nero Redivivus Myth in Revelation 17:8, 11 simply because itis doubtful that John himself believed in such a myth. This myth was unknown tothe early church fathers. More importantly, Irenaeus, who was the disciple ofPolycarp who in turn was the disciple of John, had no knowledge of the NeroRedivivus Myth.[199] Finally, some have contended thatthe historical dissolution of the Roman Empire does not match the descriptionof Rome's destruction given in Revelation 17:16-17.[200] EndTime Religious SystemMethodology Yetanother approach to identifying Babylon of Revelation 17-18 is to view Babylonas an end times religious system that will dominate the world during the comingtribulation period. This position is the one adopted by most classical andrevised dispensational scholars, including Walvoord.[201]While this coming religious system may include prominent religious institutionssuch as the Roman Catholic Church, its scope will go far beyond particularreligious institutions and instead encompasses the ecumenical movement thusforming an all inclusive world religion. This religious system is calledBabylon because it opposes God's purposes and people as did ancient Babylon inOld Testament times. Ryrie best summarizes the position when he notes: The harlot is also the mother of harlots. In otherwords, many groups will join together under the one harlot, in a kind offederated church. With the identification in Revelation 17:9 and with theinterrelation of Babylon and practices of the Roman Catholic Church, it isdifficult to escape the conclusion that the Roman church is the harlot. Butthis is not the whole picture, for the apostate church is not merely the RomanChurch. It will include other groups in a family relationship with theirmother. The tie that will bind them will be their harlotry.[202]
Walvoord sees this false church as forming after therapture: In the absence of the redeeming presence of any truebelievers, the Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox churches will combine into apowerful religious and political institution. The super-church will be able tocommand the obedience and devotion of hundreds and millions throughout theworld and will have power to put to death those who resist its demands foradherence. The new world church will be in alliance with the political powersof the Middle East. This combined effort will prepare the way for a newgovernment with absolute power over the entire world. This unholy alliance isportrayed symbolically in Revelation 17, which describes a wicked harlot ridinga scarlet-colored beast. For centuries, expositors have recognized the harlotas a symbol of religion and the scarlet beast as representing the politicalpower of the Mediterranean Confederacy in the end time. While their alliancewill bring a temporary stability to the world, it will also create ablasphemous religious system which will lead the world to new depths of immoralityand departure from true faith in God.[203]
Proponents of this position also seem toadvocate a well-defined eschatological scenario. On the one hand, the Babylonof Revelation 17 is the religious system that the antichrist destroys mid waythough the tribulation period. On the other hand, the Babylon of Revelation 18is distinct from the Babylon of chapter 17 because it is commercial andpolitical in scope and will be destroyed toward the end to the tribulation.Walvoord explains: Babylon,ecclesiastically symbolized by the woman in Revelation 17, proposes a commonworship and a common religion through uniting in a world church. This isdestroyed by the beast in Revelation 17:16 who thus fulfills the will of God(Rev 17:17). Babylon, politically symbolized by the great city of Revelation18, attempts to achieve its domination of the world by a world common marketand a world government. These are destroyed by Christ at His second coming. Weaknesses Despite the widespread acceptance of this view at the popular level,it has deficiencies. First, the harlot imagery of Revelation 17:1-5, Second, the same phrase "great city" that is used in Revelation17:18 to depict Babylon is also repeatedly used in chapter 18 (vv. 10, 16, 18,19, 21). Moreover, the same sort of harlot imagery that describes the city inchapter 17 is also employed in chapter 18 (vv. 3, 9). Yet, despite thesesimilarities, Walvoord interprets the city in Revelation 17 non-literally Third,a strong exegetical case can be made to support the proposition that Revelation17 and 18 should be viewed as a unit speaking of one Babylon rather than twoseparate units speaking of two Babylons. The notion of viewing Revelation 17and 18 as a unit is buttressed by noting the similarities between the chapters. Furthermore,most of the arguments used to prove two Babylons have been answered. Moreover,it is claimed that the response to the destruction of the two Babylons isdifferent because chapter 17 records the kings hating the harlot (17:16) andchapter 18 records the kings weeping over the harlot (18:9). However, thisdiscrepancy can be explained. The kings in 17:16 are those who unite with thebeast to defeat the harlot while the kings in 18:8 are those engaged incommerce with Babylon mourning over the loss of their source of revenue.Finally, it is claimed that the Babylon in chapter 17 is referred to as a womanwhile the Babylon in chapter 18 is referred to as a city. However, thisargument collapses upon realizing that 17:18 explains that the woman representsa city. BabylonA final option involves interpreting Babylon ofRevelation 17-18 as the futuristic literal city of Babylon on the Euphrates.Seiss[212] represents an interpreter from aprevious generation that held this view. Modern scholars who hold the viewinclude Dyer and Thomas. Proponents of this position believe that because theOld Testament and New Testament prophecies regarding Babylon remain largelyunfulfilled, the world's center of power must once again return to the ancientcity of Babylon in order for biblical prophecies to be fulfilled. MethodologyGeneral ArgumentsManyof the previously described approaches (e.g., world, Jerusalem, Rome) seem toapproach Revelation 17-18 with the pre-understanding that Revelation cannot beunderstood literally. The basis for this pre-understanding is that Revelationis part of a special type of literary genre that flourished in theintertestamental period as well as the time of Revelation's composition knownas apocalyptic literature. The Book of Enoch, Apocalypse of Baruch, Book ofJubilees, Assumption of Moses, Psalms of Solomon, Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs,and Sibylline Oracles as well asRevelation are all considered to be part of this literary era. Wheninterpreting such literature, symbolism is the rule and literalism is theexception.[213] Because Babylon proponents approachRevelation 17-18 in more of a literal manner, they seem to distance themselvesfrom the less than literal hermeneutical approaches introduced when the genreof Revelation is categorized as apocalyptic literature. Thomas,for example, rejects the classification of Revelation as apocalyptic literatureand instead opts for viewing the book as prophetic rather than apocalyptic.While acknowledging the numerous similarities between Revelation andapocalyptic literature, Thomas highlights the differences and concludes thatthe differences outweigh the similarities.[214] For example, although apocalyptic literature wastypically pseudonymous, Revelation bears the name of its author (Rev 1:1, 4, 9;22:8). Moreover, Revelation fails to share the pessimism of the apocalyptistswho despaired of all human history. Rather, Revelation reflects the optimism ofGod working redemptively through the lamb presently as well as in the future. Furthermore, apocalyptic literature contains no epistolary material. Bycontrast, seven ecclesiastical epistles are found in Revelation 2-3. Inaddition, non-canonical apocalyptic literature lacked moral imperatives. Bycontrast, Revelation utilizes moral imperatives. Humanity's need for repentanceis not only found in Christ's exhortations to the seven churches (Rev 2: 5, 16,21, 22; 3:3, 19), but the exhortation to repent is found throughout the book asa whole (Rev 9:20-21; 16:9, 11). Moreover, the coming of messiah in apocalypticliterature is something that takes place exclusively in the future. By contrastRevelation portrays Christ as having already come and laid the groundwork forHis future coming through His redemptive death. Finally, Revelation makes numerous self claims tobe prophecy (Rev 1:3; 22:7, 10, 18, 19). In fact, John uses the term profethsor its cognates eighteen times in Revelation's twenty-two chapters. in the midst of her adverse circumstances byproviding the nation with prophecies of millennial blessing to be fulfilled inthe distant future (Isa 40-66; Ezek 36-48; Amos 9:11-15). Revelation fits thisidentical pattern by providing the oppressed seven churches (Rev 2-3) with aprophecy to be fulfilled in the distant future regarding the believer's andGod's ultimate triumph (Rev 4-22). Although avpokalupsis appears in theopening verse of the book, it simply means unveiling and probably does not havethe meaning that modern scholars attach to the term "apocalyptic." These differences between Revelation andapocalyptic literature are summarized in the following chart taken and slightlyadapted from Thomas.[216] Table 1
Another ingredient of the Babylon approach is therecognition that the harlot of Revelation 17 represents a city. Thisidentification becomes obvious upon observing Revelation 17:18, which says, "And the woman whom you saw is that great citywhich reigns over the kings of the earth." Thus, Dyer correctly observes,"Whatever else is said about the harlot, she is first a city, not anecclesiastical system."[217] Although the recurring harlotryimagery (Rev 17:1, 2, 4, 15, 16: 18:3, 7) has led many interpreters to theconclusion that Babylon is a false religious system on account of the fact thatinfidelity is frequently used in Scripture to depict man's rebellion againstGod (Isa 1:21; Jer 2:20; Ezekiel 16; 23), harlotry is also used in Scripture topersonify individual Gentile cites in rebellion against God. The Old Testamentuses such imagery to portray the spiritual rebellion of Tyre (Isa 23:16-17) andNineveh (Nah 3:4). A similar understanding of harlotry seems to be in operationin Revelation 17-18 because of the fact the harlot is also a city (17:18). Babylon proponents also note that in addition tothe fact that the woman is a city (17:18), she is also named Babylon (17:5). Asalready discussed in the Rome section of this paper, it is best to view thesyntactical role of musthrion (17:5) as one of apposition to ovnomarather than part of the harlot's name. It was also mentioned in the Romesection that it is best to understand musthrion as connoting the notion ofrevealing new truth rather than communicating the idea of mysticism,spiritualism, or symbolism. In sum, Revelation 17 teaches that the harlot is acity who is named Babylon. Thus, Babylon advocates observe that when othercities or geographic areas are mentioned in Revelation, they are alwaysunderstood in a literal sense. Although not all names in Revelation are meantto be understood literally (Rev 2:14, 20), it does seem to be a general rulethat the names of cities and geographical regions are literal. For example,most interpreters typically understand the following places and cities inRevelation literally: Patmos (1:9), Ephesus (2:1), Smyrna (2:1), Pergamum(2:8), Thyatira (2:12), Sardis (3:1), Philadelphia (3:7), Laodecia (3:14),Jerusalem (11:8), the Euphrates (Rev 9:14; 16:12) and Armageddon (16:16). Whyshould the city of Babylon depicted in Revelation 17-18 not be given the sameliteral interpretation? Moreover, when John wants to communicate that he isusing a city in a non-literal sense, he makes this explicit as in 11:8 where hesays "the great city which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt." Because nosimilar formula is found in Revelation 17-18 to alert the reader that John isspeaking of the city of Babylon figuratively, there is no reason that Babylonshould be interpreted non-literally.[220] Amention of the Euphrates at two places in the Apocalypse (9:14; 16:12) furtherconfirms that assigning Babylon the literal significance of the city on theEuphrates is the most natural way of understanding Revelation 17-18. The book ofRevelation is the most thoroughly Jewish in its language and imagery of any NewTestament book. The book speaks not the language of Paul, but of the OldTestament prophets Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel.[222]
Because these prophets only used Babylon in the literal sense, it islogical to assume that John who is drawing so heavily from these prophets wouldalso use Babylon in the same literal manner. UnderstandingRevelation 17-18 as literal Babylon also seems most consistent with how thesechapters describe the city's geography. For example, the imagery of the manywaters corresponds well with Babylon's location on the Euphrates with itscanals, dikes, irrigation ditches, and marshes surrounding the city. Anothercomponent of the literal Babylon view is the notion that the propheciesregarding Babylon's destruction as recorded Isaiah 13-14 and Jeremiah 50-51have never been satisfied as demanded by the specific details of these passagesand therefore await a future fulfillment. Therefore, the supposition that thedestruction of literal Babylon on the Euphrates awaits a future fulfillmentgives interpreters more confidence in assigning a literal meaning to Babylon'sdestruction in Revelation 17-18 since the both the Old Testament and NewTestament passages regarding Babylon's destruction seem to be speaking of thesame event. Dyer contends that the prophecies regarding Babylon's destructionas recorded in Jeremiah 50-51 were not fulfilled in Babylon's defeat in 539B.C. because Babylon was never destroyed in the manner depicted by Jeremiah.Dyer points to the many differences between Babylon's historic defeat and howJeremiah 50-51 describes Babylon's ultimate destruction.[226] For example, Jeremiah predicts that an enemy fromthe north would destroy Babylon and yet the Persians came from the east. Inaddition, Jeremiah 51:8 predicts that Babylon would be destroyed suddenly andyet the actual destruction of the city was a gradual process taking severalcenturies. Furthermore, Jeremiah predicts that Babylon would be completelydestroyed (Jer 50:3, 13, 26, 39-40; 51:29, 43, 62) and yet Babylon remainedproductive and populated after her initial fall. In fact, the city was sparedand made one of the ruling centers of the Persian Empire with Daniel serving inan administrative position (Dan 5:30; 6:1-3). Moreover, Jeremiah 51:26 predicts that Babylon'sdestruction would result in even her building materials never being used againand yet the materials from which ancient Babylon may have been built have beenused extensively in the building of many surrounding cities. Also, Jeremiahpredicts that believers would flee Babylon upon her destruction (Jer 50:8;51:6, 45) and yet there is no record of the Jews fleeing Babylon when she fellto the Persians. In fact, Scripture specifically states that Daniel remained inthe city after its fall (Dan 5:28, 30-31; 6:1-3). Finally, Jeremiah predictsthe reuniting and national repentance of Israel following Israel's fall (Jer50:2, 4-5, 20; 51:50) and yet such a reuniting never took place after Babylonfell. In fact, the postexilic record evidences God's continual rebuking of Hispeople. Others have noticed a similar pattern in Isaiah13-14, which also is a prophecy of Babylon's destruction. Chapter 13 equatesBabylon's destruction to the day of the Lord (13:6-9), cosmic disturbances(13:10-13), the judgment of the world (13:11-12), the destruction of Sodom andGomorrah (13:19), and complete and final desolation (13:20-22). Chapter 14indicates that the world's universal rest and peace (14:5-8) and Israel's restoration(14:1-4) will transpire immediately after Babylon's destruction. As far asthe historic fulfillment is concerned, it is obvious from both Scripture andhistory that these verses have not been literally fulfilled. The city ofBabylon continued to flourish after the Medes conquered it, and though itsglory dwindled, especially after the control of the Medes and the Persiansended in 323 B.C., the city continued in some form or substance until A.D. 1000and did not experience a sudden termination such as is anticipated in thisprophecy.[228]
Another Old Testament passage that seems to havesome bearing on interpreting Revelation 17-18 as a future rebuilt Babylon isZechariah 5:5-11. In these verses, Zechariah sees a woman named wickednesscarried away in a basket in the last days to the land of Babylon where a templewill be built for her. Although the Babylonian Empire had already fallen, thispassage seems to indicate that wickedness will again reside in that region ofthe world.[229] Moreover, the similarities depictedin the following chart seem to indicate that both Zechariah 5:5-11 andRevelation 17-18 are speaking of the same event.[230] Table 2
In sum, various Old Testament passages (Jer 50-51; Isa 13-14; Zech5:5-11) predicting the future rise and destruction of Babylon give theinterpreter further confidence in literally construing Revelation 17-18, whichalso speaks of Babylon's future rise and fall. Descriptive Words andPhrases from Revelation 17-18The literal Babylon view isalso strengthened upon observing how John in Revelation 17-18 consistentlyemploys Old Testament imagery of ancient Babylon. For example, the languageBabylon the Great (16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21) seems to be drawn fromNebuchadnezzar's description of the Babylonian Empire in Daniel 4:30. Furthermore, the imagery ofthe many waters (Rev 17:1, 15) is reminiscent of the waters of Babylon (Ps137:1; Jer 51:13). Thus, such imagery seems intentionally selected in order toconjure up the memory of ancient Babylon, with its series of canals, thatstraddled the Euphrates. In addition, the boast of Babylon, "I sit as queen andam no widow, and will not see sorrow" (18:7) echoes that of ancient Babylon(Isa 47:7-9).[233] John also employs imagery from theTower of Babel. When Revelation 18:5 says, "her sins have piled up as high asheaven," the allusion is possibly to the use of bricks in building the Tower ofBabel.[234] In using such imagery, Johnskillfully connects future worldwide apostasy led from Babylon back to thefirst wild apostasy that began from the central locale of Babylon. Revelation 17-18 also repeatedly draws imageryfrom the description of Babylon and its destruction given in Jeremiah 50-51. The literal Babylon view is not without itscritics. However, I believe that most of the criticism raised against the viewis answerable. Perhaps the most strenuous objection to the view is that ittreats literally what should be treated symbolically given the fact thatRevelation is apocalyptic literature. When interpreting such literature,symbolism is the rule and literalism is the exception. Thus, most New Testamentscholars would counter Thomas' list of differences between Revelation andapocalyptic literature by emphasizing the similarities between the two and byarguing that the similarities outweigh the differences. Using Semeia 14[238] as a starting point, most NewTestament scholars, such as Ladd[239] and Murphy,[240]would argue that a common cluster of traits characterizes apocalypticliterature. They would also argue that Revelation shares in thesecharacteristics. These characteristics include the following:extensive use of symbolism, vision as the major means of revelation (Rev1:10-11), angelic guides (Rev 1:1), activity of angels and demons (Rev 12:7-8),focus on the end of the current age and the inauguration of the age to come(Rev 1:3), urgent expectation of the end of earthly conditions in the immediatefuture (Rev 21:1), the end as a cosmic catastrophe, new salvation that isparadisal in character (Rev 21-22), manifestation of the kingdom of God (Rev11:15), a mediator with royal functions (Rev 3:7), dualism with God and Satanas the leaders, spiritual order determining the flow of history, pessimismabout mans' ability to change the course of events, periodization anddeterminism of human history (Rev 6:11), other worldly journeys (Rev 4:1-2),the catchword glory (Rev 4:11), and a final showdown between good and evil (Rev19:11-21). The scriptural citations from Revelation in the preceding listindicate that Revelation obviously shares many of these attributes. The questionat this point is do the similarities between Revelation and apocalypticliterature outweigh the differences? While most New Testament scholars wouldsay yes, some Babylon advocates such as Thomas would say no. Moreover, many New Testament scholars would objectthat the differences between Revelation and apocalyptic literature cited byThomas are significant enough to take Revelation out of the category ofapocalyptic genre. For example, apocalyptic writings sometimes do contain moralimperatives. 1 Enoch 91:19 says, "walk in the way of righteousness and do notwalk in wickedness..." Other apocalyptic writings also contain moralimperatives (Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs; 1 Enoch 92-105) and focus upona sense of human sinfulness (4 Ezra 4:12; 7:118). However, the apocalyptistsare not generally motivated by a strong sense of moral urgency. The reason forthis is the apocalyptists' conviction that they were part of the righteousremnant. Thus, they saw their role as one of encouraging the righteous remnantto endure, remain faithful, and have hope rather than persuade people to turnfrom known sin.[241] In addition, Collins contends that Revelation'sself claim of prophecy is not sufficient to disqualify the book from theapocalyptic category. According to Collins, "Prophecy was a broad category inthe Hellenistic and Roman worlds; it could encompass various kinds ofRevelation including what we call apocalyptic."[242]However, because 278 of Revelation's 404 verses allude to the Old Testament, itis more likely that John was employing the word prophecy as it is commonly usedin the Old Testament. Most would agree that the function of Old Testamentprophecy was to cause God's people to repent and bring them back to theircovenant so that the covenant curses would stop and the covenant blessingswould begin. This type of understanding of prophecy seems to be absent frommost apocalyptic writings because of their focus upon the righteous remnant. Observing other differences between Revelationand apocalyptic genre also strengthens Thomas' argument that Revelation shouldnot be regarded as apocalyptic literature. For example, according to Kallas,apocalyptic literature has a different view of suffering than that portrayed inRevelation. In apocalyptic writings, suffering is something that emanates fromGod opposing forces that God will eventually overthrow rather than from GodHimself. Thus, the apocalyptists did not see suffering as something good thatis to be submitted to. By contrast, in Revelation, suffering comes from thehand of God because it is He who initiates the judgments (Rev 5:5; 6:1; 16:1).Therefore, at times, suffering is something good and must be submitted to. Moreover,apocalyptic literature is pseudo-prophecy or vaticinia ex eventu, which means "prophecies after the fact." Inother words, apocalyptists typically retrace history under the guise ofprophecy. From the perspective of someone in the remote past, they predict whatwill happen up to their own day. However, this is not so in Revelation whereJohn looks from his own day into the future.[244] In addition,Revelation is dominated by an already not yet tension as John looked to theneeds of his own day as well as the eschatological "Day of the Lord." Yet, thissame tension is not evident in other apocalypses.[245] Furthermore,according to Gregg, other apocalypses typically use numbers to convey conceptsrather than count units.[246] By contrast, Revelation appears touse many numbers to indicate specific count units. For example, many futuristscholars believe that various numbers found in Revelation, such as 1260 days(Rev 12:6) or 42 months (Rev 11:2; 13:5), are direct references to theunfulfilled aspects of Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks (Dan 9:24-27). Moreover,Revelation's heavy dependence upon on Ezekiel and Daniel[250]also raises questions as to whether the book should be categorized asapocalyptic. Ezekiel and Daniel prophesied 400 years before apocalypticliterature became dominant in the intertestamental period. Also, Revelation12:1 borrows imagery from Genesis 37:9-10, which took place in the patriarchalera nearly 1800 years before apocalypticism began to flourish. A furthervariance from apocalyptic writings includes Revelation's unique epistolaryintroduction (Rev 1:4-5).[251] Finally, many apocalyptic writings,such as the Book of Watchers,fail to present a precise eschatological scheme.[252]Yet, many have argued that Revelation 6-19, with its telescoping and fixedseven-year duration, does communicate a fixed eschatological scheme. Achronology of events also seems to be employed in Revelation 20-22. Insum, although Revelation has many affinities with apocalyptic literature, it isdifficult to classify it as apocalyptic because these similarities seem slightlyoutweighed by the differences between it and apocalyptic writings. A betterclassification for the book is prophecy rather than apocalyptic. Thisclassification best takes into account Revelation's numerous self claims to beprophecy, emphasis upon repentance, and purpose of comforting God's people inthe present through a vision of victory to take place in the distant future.Although this classification is a minority opinion, it is interesting toobserve other scholars reaching the same conclusion. Among them are thepreviously cited Morris and Thomas as well as Michaels[254]and even preterist David Chilton.[255] Theliteral Babylon view is also criticized on the grounds that Isaiah 13-14 andJeremiah 50-51 were essentially fulfilled in 539 B.C. and therefore do notawait a future fulfillment. Critics maintain that these prophetic texts shouldnot be approached with a wooden literalistic hermeneutic that demands thatevery minute prophetic detail come to pass before these prophecies can belabeled fulfilled.[256] For example, Heater points out thatit is common for various Old Testament passages as well as Ancient Near Easttreaties to describe the coming destruction of an enemy in hyperbolic,non-literal terms. Heater categorizes such language as "destruction genre." However,none of these critics sufficiently interacts with Dyer's argument that afterBabylon's destruction, the northern and southern kingdoms would be reunited andnational repentance would result. Moreover, following Babylon's destruction,Isaiah 14 indicates that the world's universal rest and peace (14:5-8) andIsrael's restoration (14:1-4) will transpire. Because these events await thefulfillment of Israel's covenant's after her national repentance, they havenever happened in history and are yet to occur. Interestingly, Chisholm treatsIsrael's restoration as depicted in Amos 9:11-15 as a future event. Itis also possible to question the literal, futuristic Babylon interpretation onthe grounds that such a prophecy would have little relevance to John's originalfirst century audience. However, such a criticism also calls into question theroutine practice of numerous Old Testament prophets who comforted Israel withprophecies predicting the ultimate triumph of God to be fulfilled in thedistant future (Isa 40-66; Ezek 36-48; Amos 9:11-15). Finally, the Babylon view has been criticized asbeing the product of reading current events regarding the present Iraqi crisisback into the text rather than being the product of sound exegeticalprinciples. Pate and Hays either expressly or tacitly level this charge inseveral instances.[261] However, this accusation seemsunfair in light of the fact that numerous interpreters held the view longbefore Sadam Hussein rose to power. Such commentators include Newell (1935), Thissection of the paper has surveyed five prominent approaches for identifyingBabylon in Revelation 17-18. These approaches include identifying Babylon asthe world, Jerusalem, Rome, an end time religious system, and futuristic,literal, rebuilt Babylon. As indicated in the preceding discussion, I leantoward the Babylon position. Although this position is not without itsweaknesses and is presently a minority position in the scholarly world, itseems to have fewer problems than the other views.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Alford,Henry. The Greek Testament. 4 vols. 3d ed. Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co.,1866.
Aune, David E. Revelation6-19 WordBiblical Commentary, ed. Bruce M. Metzger. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997.
________. Revelation 17-22 Word Biblical Commentary, ed.Bruce M. Metzger. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997.
Barr, James. The Semantics ofBiblical Language.London: Oxford University Press, 1961.
Beagley, Alan James. The'Stitz Im Leben' of the Apocalypse with Particular Reference to the Role of theChurch's Enemies.New York: de Gruyter, 1987.
Beale, G. K. The Book ofRevelation NewCentury Bible Commentary Series, ed. I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
Beasley-Murray, G.R. The Bookof RevelationNew Century Bible Commentary. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1974.
Beckwith, Isbon T. TheApocalypse of John.New York: Macmillan, 1919.
Bell, Albert A. "The Dateof John's Apocalypse. The Evidence of Some Roman Historians Reconsidered."New Testament Studies 25 (October 1978): 93-102.
Bock, Darrell L."Interpreting the Bible-How Texts Speak to Us." In ProgressiveDispensationalism,ed. Darrell L. Bock Craig A. Blaising. Wheaton: Victor, 1993.
________. "SummaryEssay." In Three Views on the Millennium, ed. Darrell L. Bock. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1999.
Caird, G.B. The Revelation ofSaint JohnBlack's New Testament Commentaries, ed. Henry Chadwick. London: Black, 1966.
________. The Language andImagery of the Bible.London: Duckworth, 1980.
Carson, D.A. New TestamentCommentary Survey.5th ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.
Charles, R. H. The Revelationof St. John.Vol. 2 International Critical Commentary, ed. S.R. Driver and A. Plummer andC.A. Briggs. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920.
Chilton, David. The Days ofVengeance: An Exposition of the Book of Revelation. Tyler, TX: Dominion Press,1987.
Chisholm, Robert B. Handbookon the Prophets.Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.
Collins, J. J. "TheSibylline Oracles, Book 5." In The Old Testament Psuedepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth.Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.
Collins, John J. TheApocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1998.
________, ed. Apocalypse: TheMorphology of a Genre,Semia; 14. Missoula: MT: Scholars Press, 1979.
Cooper, David L. The World'sGreatest Library Graphically Illustrated. Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1942.
Dyer, Charles H. "TheIdentity of Babylon in Revelation 17 and 18." Th.M. thesis, DallasTheological Seminary, 1979.
________. The Rise of Babylon. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1991.
________. Old TestamentExplorerSwindoll Leadership Library, ed. Charles R. Swindoll and Roy B. Zuck.Nashville: Word Publishing, 2001.
________. The Rise of Babylon. rev. ed. Chicago: MoodyPublishers, 2003.
________. "The Identity ofBabylon in Revelation 17-18 (Part 1)." Bibliotheca Sacra 144 (July-September 1987):305-17.
________. "The Identity ofBabylon in Revelation 17-18 (Part 2)." Bibliotheca Sacra 144 (October-December 1987):433-449.
Ehrman, Bart D. The NewTestament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 2d ed. New York: OUP, 2000.
Ewing, D. Ragan. "TheIdentification of Babylon the Harlot in the Book of Revelation." Th.M.thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 2002.
Ford, J. Massyngberde. Revelation. Vol. 38 Anchor Bible, ed.William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman. Garden City, NY: Doubleday,1975.
Frost, Samuel M. MisplacedHope: The Origins of First and Second Century Eschatology. Colorado Springs: BimillennialPress, 2002.
Fruchtenbaum, Arnold G. Footstepsof the Messiah.Tustin: Ariel Ministries, 1983.
________. Israelology: TheMissing Link in Systematic Theology. rev. ed. Tustin: Ariel Ministries, 1994.
Gentry, Kenneth L. BeforeJerusalem Fell.Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989.
________. "A Preterist Viewof Revelation." In Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1998.
________. The Beast ofRevelation.Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2002.
________. "The Days ofVengeance: A Review Article." The Council of Chalcedon (June 1987).
Gregg, Steve, ed. Revelation:Four Views, a Parallel Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997.
Gromacki, Robert G. NewTestament Survey.Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974.
Hamstra, Sam. "An IdealistView of Revelation." In Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1998.
Heater, Homer. "Do theProphets Teach That Babylonia Will Rebuilt in the Eschaton?" Journal ofthe Evangelical Theological Society 41 (March 1998): 23-43.
Hendrickson, William. MoreThan Conquerors: An Interpretation of the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1939.
Hitchcock, Mark. The Second Comingof Babylon.Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 2003.
________. "The Stake in theHeart: The A.D. 95 Date of Revelation." In The End Times Controversy, ed. Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice.Eugene, OR: Harvest House, 2003.
Hoehner, Harold W. ChronologicalAspects of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977.
________. "Evidence fromRevelation 20." In The Coming Millennial Kingdom, ed. Donald K. Campbell andJeffrey L. Townsend. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1997.
________. Ephesians: AnExegetical Commentary.Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.
Ice, Thomas. "Has BibleProphecy Already Been Fulfilled? (Part 2)." Conservative TheologicalJournal 4(December 2000): 291-327.
Jenkins, Ferrel. The OldTestament in the Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1976.
Jennings, Frederick C. Studiesin Revelation.New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1937.
Johnston, Gordon. Introductionto the Study of the Prophets. Unit 5: Hermeneutics of Fulfillment /Non-Fulfillmet of Prophecy: unpublished class notes in 104 Hebrew Exegesis, Dallas TheologicalSeminary, Spring Semester, Spring 2003.
Kallas, James. "TheApocalypse-an Apocalyptic Book?" Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967): 69-80.
Keener, Craig S. The IvpBible Background Commentary: New Testament. Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press, 1993.
Kiddle, M. The Revelation ofSt. John. NewYork: Harper, 1940.
Klijn, A. "2 (SyriacApocalypse of) Baruch." In The Old Testament Psuedepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth.Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983.
Kreitzer, Larry. "Hadrianand the Nero Redivivus Myth." Zeitschrift Fur Die NuetestamentlicheWissenschaft 79(1988): 92-115.
Ladd, George Eldon. ACommentary on the Revelation of John. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972. Reprint, 1979.
________. The Presence of theFuture. GrandRapids: Eerdmans, 1974.
Lang, George H. TheRevelation of Jesus Christ. London: Paternoster, 1948.
Larkin, Clarence. The Book ofRevelation.Glenside, PA: Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate, 1919.
Michaels, J. Ramsey. Interpretingthe Book of Revelation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992.
Morris, Leon. Apocalyptic. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1980.
Moule, Charles. "The Natureand Purpose of 1 Peter." New Testament Studies 3 (1956-7).
Mounce, Robert H. The Book ofRevelation.rev. ed. Commentary on the New Testament, ed. Gordon D. Fee. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1998.
Murphy, Frederick J. EarlyJudaism: The Exile to the Time of Jesus. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.
Newell, William R. The Bookof Revelation.Chicago: Grace Publications, 1935.
Pate, C. Marvin. "AProgressive Dispensationalist View of Revelation." In Four Views on theBook of Revelation,ed. C. Marvin Pate. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
________. Iraq-Babylon of theEnd Times.Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003.
Provan, Iain. "FoulSpirits, Fornication and Finance: Revelation 18 from an Old TestamentPerspective." Journal for the Study of the New Testament 64 (December 1996): 81-100.
Ramm, Bernard. ProtestantBiblical Interpretation. Boston: W.A. Wilde, 1956.
Reddish, Mitchell G., ed. ApocalypticLiterature: A Reader.Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1990.
Robertson, Archibald Thomas. WordPictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. Nashville: Broadman Press, 1933.
Robinson, A. T. Redating theNew Testament.Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976.
Russell, J. Stuart. TheParousia: A Critical Inquiry into the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord'sSecond Coming.London: Unwin, 1887. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999.
Ryrie, Charles Caldwell. Revelation. Chicago: Moody Press, 1968.
Scofield, C. I., ed. The NewScofield Reference Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1909.
Seiss, J. A. The Apocalypse:Lectures on the Book of Revelation. New York: Charles C. Cook, 1909. Reprint, GrandRapids, Zondervan, 1964.
Smith, J. Ritchie. "TheDate of the Apocalypse." Bibliotheca Sacra 45 (April-June 1888): 297-328.
Sproul, R.C. The Last DaysAccording to Jesus.Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998.
Swete, Henry Barclay. TheApocalypse of St. John, ed. 3d. London: Macmillan, 1911.
Tenney, Merrill C. InterpretingRevelation.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957.
Terry, Milton S. BiblicalApocalyptics: A Study of the Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ. NY: Eaton & Mains, 1898.
Thiessen, Henry Clarence. Introductionto the New Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955.
Thomas, Robert L. Revelation 1to 7: An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.
________. Revelation 8 to 22:An Exegetical Commentary. Chicago: Moody Press, 1992.
________. "A ClassicalDispensationalist View of Revelation." In Four Views on the Book ofRevelation, ed.C. Marvin Pate. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
________. EvangelicalHermeneutics: The New Versus the Old. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2002.
Vine, W. E. Vine's CompleteExpository Dictionary of the Old and New Testament Words. Nashville: Thomas Nelson,1985.
Wall, Robert W. Revelation New International BiblicalCommentary. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.
Walvoord, John F. TheRevelation of Jesus Christ. Chicago: Moody Press, 1966.
________. The Nations inProphecy. GrandRapids: Zondervan, 1967.
________. Armageddon: Oil andthe Middle East Crisis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974.
Wright, N. T. ChristianOrigins and the Question of God. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.
[1] Steve Gregg, ed., Revelation: Four Views, a ParallelCommentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson,1997), 11. [2] Kenneth L. Gentry, "A Preterist View ofRevelation," in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998),38. [3] James Kallas, "The Apocalypse-an ApocalypticBook?," Journal of Biblical Literature 86 (1967): 70. [4] Mitchell G. Reddish, ed., Apocalyptic Literature: AReader (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,1990), 24. [5] John J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: AnIntroduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 38. [6] G.B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (London: Duckworth, 1980), 253. [7] Collins, 51. [8] Darrell L. Bock, "Interpreting the Bible-How TextsSpeak to Us," in Progressive Dispensationalism, ed. Darrell L. Bock Craig A. Blaising (Wheaton:Victor, 1993), 93-96. [9] C. Marvin Pate, "A Progressive DispensationalistView of Revelation," in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998),160. [10] Gregg, ed., 11-12. [11] Darrell L. Bock, "Summary Essay," in ThreeViews on the Millennium, ed. DarrellL. Bock (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1999), 303-305. [12] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 1 to 7: An ExegeticalCommentary (Chicago: Moody Press,1992), 38. [13] Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Boston: W.A. Wilde, 1956), 89-92. [14] John F. Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), 29-30. [15] Thomas, 40. [16] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Footsteps of the Messiah (Tustin: Ariel Ministries, 1983), 454-59. [17] Merrill C. Tenney, Interpreting Revelation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1957), 139, 142. [18] Gregg, ed., 43-44. [19] G. K. Beale, The Book of Revelation, ed. I. Howard Marshall and Donald A. Hagner, NewCentury Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 885-86. [20] William Hendrickson, More Than Conquerors: AnInterpretation of the Book of Revelation(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1939), 200-202. [21] Sam Hamstra, "An Idealist View ofRevelation," in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998),116-20. [22] Beale, 755. [23] Ibid., 850. [24] Hamstra, 117. [25] Hendrickson, 202. [26] Hamstra, 129. [27] Gregg, ed., 405. [28] Hendrickson, 208. [29] Ibid., 210. [30] Gregg, ed., 44. [31] N.T. Wright, Christian Origins and the Question of God, 2 vols. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996), 1:333. [32] Ibid., 2:321-22. [33] Robert L. Thomas, "A Classical DispensationalistView of Revelation," in Four Views on the Book of Revelation, ed. C. Marvin Pate (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998),226. [34] J. Massyngberde Ford, Revelation, ed. William Foxwell Albright and David Noel Freedman,Anchor Bible, vol. 38 (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975), 54-56, 93, 259-307. [35] J. Stuart Russell, The Parousia: A Critical Inquiryinto the New Testament Doctrine of Our Lord's Second Coming (London: Unwin, 1887; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker,1999), 482-98. [36] Milton S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics: A Study ofthe Most Notable Revelations of God and of Christ (NY: Eaton & Mains, 1898), 426-39. [37] David Chilton, The Days of Vengeance: An Expositionof the Book of Revelation (Tyler, TX:Dominion Press, 1987), 421-66. [38] Gentry, 73-79. [39] Alan James Beagley, The 'Stitz Im Leben' of theApocalypse with Particular Reference to the Role of the Church's Enemies (New York: de Gruyter, 1987), 93-110. [40] Full preterism seesRevelation 4-22 as finding a total A.D. 70 fulfillment. Russell is arepresentative of the full preterist camp. On the other hand, partial preterismunderstands most of the contents of Revelation 4-22 as finding an A.D. 70 realizationwhile allowing for some of these prophecies, such as Revelation 20, to receivea futuristic fulfillment. Gentry is an advocate of partial preterism. [41] Iain Provan, "Foul Spirits, Fornication andFinance: Revelation 18 from an Old Testament Perspective," Journal forthe Study of the New Testament 64(December 1996): 81-100. [42] Russell, 346-50. [43] All Scripturequotations used throughout are taken from the New King James Version. [44] Chilton, 421. [45] Gentry, 52-53. [46] Russell, 374. [47] Ibid., 375-76. [48] Ibid., 485. [49] Terry, 460. [50] Russell, 486-87. [51] Ibid., 486. [52] Ibid., 487-88. [53] Ford, 264. [54] Russell, 487. [55] Gregg, ed., 404. [56] Russell, 487. [57] Chilton, 424-26. [58] Terry, 427. [59] Chilton, 424, n. 2. [60] Ibid., 428. [61] Ibid., 429. [62] Gentry, 76. [63] Beale, 886. [64] Beagley, 94. [65] Gentry, 75. [66] Ford, 300. [67] Russell, 492. [68] Ibid., 499-502. [69] Ibid., 502-4. [70] Beagley, 95. [71] Russell, 493-95. [72] Chilton, 442-43. [73] Ford, 285. [74] Gregg, ed., 424. [75] Ibid., 428. [76] Provan: 94. [77] Ford, 304-5. [78] Beagley, 109. [79] Provan: 81-100. [80] Beagley, 99. [81] Robert L. Thomas, Revelation 8 to 22: An ExegeticalCommentary (Chicago: Moody Press,1992), 307. [82] Ibid., 206. [83] Beale, 25. [84] Ibid. [85] Pate, 169-70. [86] Beale, 885. [87] Ibid., 887. [88] R.C. Sproul, The Last Days According to Jesus (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 140. [89] Kenneth L. Gentry, "The Days of Vengeance: AReview Article," The Council of Chalcedon (June 1987): 11. [90] Kenneth L. Gentry, Before Jerusalem Fell (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1989). [91] D. Ragan Ewing, "The Identification of Babylon theHarlot in the Book of Revelation" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary,2002), 22-54. [92] Kenneth L. Gentry, The Beast of Revelation (Powder Springs, GA: American Vision, 2002), 109. [93] J. Ritchie Smith, "The Date of theApocalypse," Bibliotheca Sacra45 (April-June 1888). For a more recentwork specifically critiquing the early date arguments raised by Gentry, see Mark Hitchcock, "The Stake in the Heart: The A.D.95 Date of Revelation," in The End Times Controversy, ed. Tim LaHaye and Thomas Ice (Eugene, OR: HarvestHouse, 2003), 123-50. It is myunderstanding that much of the material from this chapter will provide thebasis for Hitchcock's upcoming doctoral dissertation arguing for a Domitianicdate for Revelation. [94] D.A. Carson, New Testament Commentary Survey, 5th ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 129. [95] Samuel M. Frost, Misplaced Hope: The Origins of Firstand Second Century Eschatology(Colorado Springs: Bimillennial Press, 2002), 154. [96] Thomas, Revelation 8 to 22: An Exegetical Commentary, 303. [97] Walvoord, 56. [98] Ibid., 333. [99] Thomas Ice, "Has Bible Prophecy Already BeenFulfilled? (Part 2)," Conservative Theological Journal 4 (December 2000): 306. [100] James Barr, The Semantics of Biblical Language (London: Oxford University Press, 1961), 217-18. [101] Thomas, Revelation 8 to 22: An Exegetical Commentary, 283. [102] Robert L. Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The NewVersus the Old (Grand Rapids: Kregel,2002), 458. [103] David E. Aune, Revelation 17-22, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, Word Biblical Commentary(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 906-1012. [104] R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John, ed. S.R. Driver and A. Plummer and C.A. Briggs,International Critical Commentary, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1920),75. [105] Henry Barclay Swete, The Apocalypse of St. John, ed. 3d (London: Macmillan, 1911), 226. [106] G.B. Caird, The Revelation of Saint John, ed. Henry Chadwick, Black's New TestamentCommentaries (London: Black, 1966), 213. [107] Robert H. Mounce, The Book of Revelation, ed. Gordon D. Fee, rev. ed., Commentary on the NewTestament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), 308. [108] G.R. Beasley-Murray, The Book of Revelation, New Century Bible Commentary (London: Marshall,Morgan, and Scott, 1974), 225. [109] David E. Aune, Revelation 6-19, ed. Bruce M. Metzger, Word Biblical Commentary(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997), 829. [110] Beale, 19. [111] Aune, Revelation 6-19, 830. [112] Ibid. [113] C. Marvin Pate, Iraq-Babylon of the End Times (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2003), 103. [114] Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures in the NewTestament, 6 vols. (Nashville:Broadman Press, 1933), 6:430. [115]Most of these reasons were taken from RobertG. Gromacki, New Testament Survey(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1974), 351. [116]Thiessen lists the following ancient sources placing Peter in Rome toward theend of his life: Ignatius, Papias, First Clement, Hegesippus, Clement ofAlexandria, Origen, Dionysius of Carthage, Tertullian and Jerome. See Henry Clarence Thiessen, Introduction to the NewTestament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,1955), 285. [117] Pate, Iraq-Babylon of the End Times, 108. [118] Thiessen, 285. [119] Russell, 347. [120] Pate, Iraq-Babylon of the End Times, 109. [121]The names of the seven hills are Capitol, Aventine, Caelin, Esquiline, Quirnal,Viminal, and Palestine. [122] Pate, Iraq-Babylon of the End Times, 103. [123] Mounce, 313-14. [124] Thomas, Revelation 8 to 22: An Exegetical Commentary, 295. [125] Aune, Revelation 17-22, 919-28. [126] Pate, Iraq-Babylon of the End Times, 104-107. [127] Craig S. Keener, The Ivp Bible BackgroundCommentary: New Testament (Grove, IL:Inter Varsity Press, 1993), 807. [128] Aune, Revelation 17-22, 929. [129] Charles, 64. [130] Mounce, 310-11. [131] Aune, Revelation 17-22, 960, 1011. [132] Ibid., 960. [133] Gregg, ed., 414. [134] Aune, Revelation 17-22, 1006. [135] Gregg, ed., 414. [136] Aune, Revelation 17-22, 989. [137] Ibid., 981-82. [138] Gregg, ed., 433, 435. [139] Ibid., 276. [140] Beasley-Murray, 249. [141] Beagley, 92-93. [142] Ibid. [143] Ibid., 108. [144] Thomas, Revelation 8 to 22: An Exegetical Commentary, 307. [145] Ibid., 339. [146] Ibid., 289. [147] George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation ofJohn (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972;reprint, 1979), 228. [148] Charles H. Dyer, "The Identity of Babylon inRevelation 17-18 (Part 2)," Bibliotheca Sacra 144 (October-December 1987): 434-36. [149] Walvoord, 246. [150] Thomas, Revelation 8 to 22: An Exegetical Commentary, 289. [151] W. E. Vine, Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary ofthe Old and New Testament Words(Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985), 424. [152] Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An ExegeticalCommentary (Grand Rapids: Baker,2002), 428-34. [153] Thomas, Revelation 8 to 22: An Exegetical Commentary, 288-89. [154] Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, 3d ed., 4 vols. (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co.,1866), 4:128. [155] Ibid., 129. [156] Gromacki, 351. [157] Charles Moule, "The Nature and Purpose of 1Peter," New Testament Studies3 (1956-7): 9. [158] Thiessen, 285. [159] Ibid. [160] Alford, 131. [161] Gromacki, 352. [162] Thiessen, 285. [163] Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum, Israelology: The MissingLink in Systematic Theology, rev. ed.(Tustin: Ariel Ministries, 1994), 1003. [164] A. Klijn, "2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch,"in The Old Testament Psuedepigrapha,ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1983), 1:616-17. [165] J. J. Collins, "The Sibylline Oracles, Book5," in The Old Testament Psuedepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, NY:Doubleday, 1983), 1:390. [166] Larry Kreitzer, "Hadrian and the Nero RedivivusMyth," Zeitschrift Fur Die Nuetestamentliche Wissenschaft 79 (1988): 97. [167] Thomas, Revelation 8 to 22: An Exegetical Commentary, 206. [168] Ibid., 289. [169] Dyer: 438. [170] Walvoord, 22-23. [171] Aune, Revelation 17-22, 944. [172] Ibid., 948. [173] Ibid., 951. [174] Thomas, Revelation 8 to 22: An Exegetical Commentary, 295-96. [175] Beale, 870. [176] Ibid., 868. [177] Ewing, 63. [178] Beagley, 103. [179] Russell, 492. [180] Beagley, 103. [181] Dyer: 437-38. [182] Ibid.: 438. [183] Thomas, Revelation 1 to 7: An Exegetical Commentary, 40. [184] Ferrel Jenkins, The Old Testament in the Book ofRevelation (Grand Rapids: Baker,1976), 22. [185] Ladd, 227-28. [186] Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus theOld, 458. [187] Ladd, 228-29. [188] Albert A. Bell, "The Date of John's Apocalypse.The Evidence of Some Roman Historians Reconsidered," New TestamentStudies 25 (October 1978): 99. [189] Aune, Revelation 17-22, 947. [190] Beale, 874. [191] Isbon T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John (New York: Macmillan, 1919), 708. [192] A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976), 245-49. [193] Caird, The Revelation of Saint John, 217-18. [194] Dyer: 440. [195] Thomas, "A Classical Dispensationalist View ofRevelation," 203. [196] Walvoord, 251-54. [197] M. Kiddle, The Revelation of St. John (New York: Harper, 1940), 349. [198] Beagley, 102. Beale, 858. [199] Thomas, Revelation 8 to 22: An Exegetical Commentary, 158. [200] Robert W. Wall, Revelation, New International Biblical Commentary (Peabody, MA:Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 211. [201] Walvoord, 243-67. [202] Charles Caldwell Ryrie, Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968), 101-2. [203] John F. Walvoord, Armageddon: Oil and the Middle EastCrisis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1974), 108-9. [204] Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 267. [205] Ibid., 243-48. [206] Ibid., 257. [207] Ibid. [208] Ibid., 263. [209] C. I. Scofield, ed., The New Scofield ReferenceBible (New York: Oxford UniversityPress, 1909), 1369-70. [210] Charles H. Dyer, "The Identity of Babylon inRevelation 17-18 (Part 1)," Bibliotheca Sacra 144 (July-September 1987): 311-13. [211] Ibid.: 305-11. [212] J. A. Seiss, The Apocalypse: Lectures on the Book ofRevelation (New York: Charles C. Cook,1909; reprint, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1964), 397. [213] Gregg, ed., 11. [214] Thomas, Revelation 1 to 7: An Exegetical Commentary, 23-28. [215] Thomas, "A Classical Dispensationalist View ofRevelation," 224. [216] Thomas, Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New Versus theOld, 338. I took the liberty of slightly modifying the order ofitems in the chart in order to better harmonize them with the precedingdiscussion. [217] Dyer, "The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18(Part 2)," 436. [218] Ibid.: 434. [219] Aune, Revelation 17-22, 930. [220] Thomas, Revelation 8 to 22: An Exegetical Commentary, 206-207. [221] Ibid. [222] Jenkins, 22. [223] Thomas, Revelation 8 to 22: An Exegetical Commentary, 283. [224] Ibid., 307. [225] Ibid., 316-17. [226] Dyer, "The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18(Part 2)," 443-49. [227] Mark Hitchcock, The Second Coming of Babylon (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 2003), 79-91. [228] John F. Walvoord, The Nations in Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), 63-64. [229] Charles H. Dyer, Old Testament Explorer, ed. Charles R. Swindoll and Roy B. Zuck, SwindollLeadership Library (Nashville: Word Publishing, 2001), 825-26. [230] Hitchcock, The Second Coming of Babylon, 109. [231] Thomas, Revelation 8 to 22: An Exegetical Commentary, 207. [232] Hitchcock, The Second Coming of Babylon, 105. [233] Gregg, ed., 431. [234] Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 260. [235] Dyer, "The Identity of Babylon in Revelation 17-18(Part 2)," 441-43. [236] Thomas, Revelation 8 to 22: An Exegetical Commentary, 307. [237] Aune, Revelation 17-22, 983. [238] John J. Collins, ed., Apocalypse: The Morphology ofa Genre, Semia; 14 (Missoula: MT:Scholars Press, 1979), 9. [239] George Eldon Ladd, The Presence of the Future (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 76-101. [240] Frederick J. Murphy, Early Judaism: The Exile to theTime of Jesus (Peabody, MA:Hendrickson, 2002), 130-33. [241] Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament: A HistoricalIntroduction to the Early Christian Writings, 2d ed. (New York: OUP, 2000), 227. [242] Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: AnIntroduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 269. [243] Kallas: 169-80. [244] Leon Morris, Apocalyptic, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 94. [245] Ibid. [246] Gregg, ed., 11-12. [247] Walvoord, The Revelation of Jesus Christ, 177, 191, 200. [248] Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Lifeof Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,1977), 115-39. [249] Thomas, Revelation 8 to 22: An Exegetical Commentary, 408. [250] Jenkins, 22. [251] J. Ramsey Michaels, Interpreting the Book ofRevelation (Grand Rapids: Baker,1992), 22. [252] Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introductionto Jewish Apocalyptic Literature, 56. [253] Harold W. Hoehner, "Evidence from Revelation20," in The Coming Millennial Kingdom, ed. Donald K. Campbell and Jeffrey L. Townsend (Grand Rapids: Kregel,1997), 245-61. [254] Michaels, 21-23. [255] Chilton, 25-27. [256] Pate, Iraq-Babylon of the End Times, 41. [257] Homer Heater, "Do the Prophets Teach ThatBabylonia Will Rebuilt in the Eschaton?," Journal of the EvangelicalTheological Society 41 (March 1998):31-36. [258] Robert B. Chisholm, Handbook on the Prophets (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 53, 213. [259] Gordon Johnston, Introduction to the Study of theProphets. Unit 5: Hermeneutics of Fulfillment / Non-Fulfillmet of Prophecy (unpublished class notes in 104 Hebrew Exegesis,Dallas Theological Seminary, Spring Semester, Spring 2003), 26. [260] Chisholm, 401-403. [261] Pate, Iraq-Babylon of the End Times, 40, 97, 100. [262] William R. Newell, The Book of Revelation (Chicago: Grace Publications, 1935), 268. [263] Frederick C. Jennings, Studies in Revelation (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, 1937), 476. [264] David L. Cooper, The World's Greatest LibraryGraphically Illustrated (Los Angeles:Biblical Research Society, 1942), 114. [265] George H. Lang, The Revelation of Jesus Christ (London: Paternoster, 1948), 305. [266] Seiss, 397. [267] Clarence Larkin, The Book of Revelation (Glenside, PA: Rev. Clarence Larkin Estate, 1919),150. [268] Charles H. Dyer, The Rise of Babylon (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1991). [269] Charles H. Dyer, The Rise of Babylon, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2003). [270] Charles H. Dyer, "The Identity of Babylon in Revelation17 and 18" (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1979). |
